Politikk, religion og samfunn President Donald J. Trump - Quo vadis? (Del 2)
- Trådstarter Høvdingen
- Startdato
Diskusjonstråd Se tråd i gallerivisning
-
Men husk nå på at det viktigste er å vise til at man gjør noe. Konsekvenser er ikke så viktige i Trumpland, særlig ikke når det er verdens ledende ekspert på alt som uttaler seg. Konsekvenser = det som går ut over noen andre, altså ikke særlig vesentlig.GGjestemedlem
Gjest
Stemmer helt sikkert det, men poenget er at det heller ikke er noen gode alternativer i form av annen medisin som virker god nok, og i en slik situasjon vil en handlekraftig leder være villig til å ta slike sjanser, ting man ikke ville gjort i en normalsituasjon.
.. så selv om det ikke virker og har bivirkninger, så har det å ikke gjøre noe også bivirkninger om man bare lar folk dø uten å en gang prøve å gjøre noe med det. Du vil jo aldri få med en smittevernsekspert på noe slik, for de lar deres formelle kompetanse stå i veien for risikovilligheten.GGjestemedlem
Gjest
Ikke helt, det går ut over andre å ikke gjøre noe også..
Dessuten er det lite nyttig å snakke om "Trumpland", der er vi tilbake til deplorables strategien-igjen .. og vi har sett hvordan det påvirker valg.. Glem ikke at vi snakker om halve velgermassen i USA og ikke en underlig sekt av hillbillies. Blir det mange flere av dem så er jo Trump garantert å vinne, og hvor mange tror du man sjarmerer eller overbeviser ved å kalle dem idioter, magaheads, deplorables ... etc? Om noe så vil mange nok stemme Trump bare for å vise fingeren til besswerwisserne som slenger fornærmelser til dem, folk som ellers kanskje ikke hadde giddet å stemme en gang.
Her er faktisk Bernie flinkere, han flytter fokus mer bort fra Trump og over på egne politiske saker (hvorvidt de sakene er bra eller ikke er ikke poenget her). Obama vant jo så det sang fordi han klarte å styre oppmerksomheten slik at valget ble et ja eller nei til ham, og ikke ja eller nei til motstanderen.
Greit nok, men hvis man tar en sjanse og resultatet er verre enn om man ikke hadde tatt den sjansen så har man, i den virkelige verden, faktisk feilet. Når det gjelder Trump så har han ikke akkurat en track record som vitner om gode instinkter på andre områder enn skamløst selvskryt og promotering av sitt eget navn. Ville du tatt en pille på råd fra Trump over en medisinsk ekspert?GGjestemedlem
Gjest
Kanskje, men det ville være for enkelt, og ikke ha noen stor effekt. Det er slik man kan gjøre i små saker av mindre betydning, og ikke slik som her.
Bedre da med: "jeg prøve i alle fall!" "det virker kanskje ikke, men hva er alternativet" .. "hva gjorde du/dere da annet enn å kritiser" ... noe i den duren.
---
.. bare spekulasjoner selvsagt.. men det finnes som sagt alternativer.
Poenget er at det ikke er sikkert at det engang er noen gevinst i å sitte å vente på dette, for så å peke på hvor dum og slem og hensynsløs Trump er og at han kan være uforutsigbar til tider.
Det er farlig å undervurdere en motstander.. til og med en som vant forrige runde.
Du skal lete lenge for å finne tilsvarende religøsitet i noe Europeisk land. Uten at jeg har sjekket, jeg tviler veldig sterkt på at du finner et Europeisk land der ALLE politiske representanter er erlærte kristne (eller annet vrøvl). Tilogmed i Polen er det vel politikere som ikke er religiøse?
Til info:
Polen 39% (believers following the Church's laws)/ 52% (believers in their own understanding and way), 5% atheist
USA: 65% kristne i 2019 (85% i 1990, 81.6% i 2001), 3.1% atheister i 2018
Der er jeg enig med Deph, spesielt når denne klarer å gå opp i popularitet etter å ha jugd seg gjennom hele Corona-krisen.GGjestemedlem
Gjest
Ikke under normale forhold, men får man dødsangst (som garantert mange med alvorlig coronasykcom har) så har man jo ikke så mye å tape. Glem ikke hvor mange i USA som er religiøse i forhold til her hjemme.
"skamløst selvskryt og promotering av sitt eget navn" er jo din oppfatning, og mange politiske motstandere.. men de er jo uansett ikke noe å bry seg for mye med, for de vil ikke stemme Trump uansett hva han gjør! Men de som er i tvil, og spør de medisinske ekspertene hvilke pille de har å tilby i stedet for .. og de trekker på skulderen og ber deg vente 5-6 år til forskerne kommer frem til noe lurt og alle prosedyrer er fulgt. Ikke sikkert at det ses på som et bedre alternativ...Det at Trump har sørget for at det er bestilt 29 millioner doser av denne medisinen har sikkert ingen ting med dette å gjøre.
Hvis han ikke anbefaler det er det bortkastede penger. Hvis noen dør av komplikasjonene vil man ikke få høre om det for det blir sikkert avskrevet som et corona-dødsfall. Han har lite å tape på å anbefale det. Det er nok derfor han hindret Fauci i å si noe om det.
Noe presiseringer her: Mine kommantarer er sett med Trumps øyne. Om det går ut over noen å gjøre noe/ikke gjøre noe, så driter han i det så lenge det ikke treffer ratingen. Trumpland _ Trumps verdensanskuelse.
Otares forklaring høres særdeles troverdig ut. Han har gjort noe. Altså virker det.
Igjen, jeg snakker ikke om det politiske spillet eller om hva dødssyke mennesker er villige til å prøve. Jeg snakker om realiteter og hva som bør anbefales hvis man kaster vekk alle politiske kalkulasjoner og anekdotiske historier. Også i Norge oppsøker kreftsyke mennesker Snåsamannen når det ikke er mer legene kan gjøre, men bør Høie anbefale alternativ behandling av kreft for de som ikke har noe å tape?
Om det er en tid man bør høre på eksperter og ikke på Trump's gut feeling så er det nå, det vil garantert redde liv.
- Ble medlem
- 19.09.2014
- Innlegg
- 21.776
- Antall liker
- 14.414
Det kom i 1955 så er nok ganske generisk i utgangspunktet (dvs mange kan produsere, selge og markedsføre det). I følge Wikipedia koster det betegnende nok ca 4 ganger så mye i USA som i England. En måneds behandling koster 25 dollar i USA, ca 5 pund i England. Så det er ikke et veldig dyrt legemiddel akkurat.
Har du hørt sånn pjatt? Det finnes flere små undersøkelser som viser klare forbedringer på pasientenes tilstand - og en forkortelse
av sykdomsforløpet ved bruk av Chloroquine/Hydrochloroquine - alene - eller sammen med ytteligere preparater (som imunforsvars-
dempende medisiner og C-vitamin). Det forekommer også indikasjoner på at medisinen kan ha en prevantiv virkning som forhindrer
sykdomsforløpet helt og holdent.
Den eneste grunnen til at eksperter som Fausti er skeptisk til denne medisinen er nettopp at det statistiske grunnlager er for lite
- etter deres mening - til å komme med noen absolutt konklusjon.
Grunnen til at lekfolk innen det Demokratiske partiet, deres medløpere i propagandapressen og i siste instans otare, er skeptisk til
medisinen kan være mange, men det koker vel fort ned til at når Trump er for noe, så er opposisjonen automatisk i mot det
samme. Man ønsker kanskje ikke noen "quickfix" som dette, da denne krisen er slikt et ypperlig våpen for å "ta" Donald Trump.
Når det gjelder bivirkninger, er det vel knapt noen medisin på markedet som er bedre dokumentert. Bivirkningene er minimale, men som
med all medisin forekommer de selvfølgelig og må overvåkes. Preparatene har vært i salg i mer enn 70 år og er godkjent for forebygging/
behandling av Malaria og en drøss virussykdommer. Det er kun i behandling av Corona at medisinen ikke har noen offisiell godkjenning.
Selv New York Times har innsett dette:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/01/health/hydroxychloroquine-coronavirus-malaria.html
Key findings: But for TTCR, the body temperature recovery time and the cough remission time were significantly shortened in the HCQ
treatment group. Besides, a larger proportion of patients with improved pneumonia in the HCQ treatment group (80.6%, 25 of 32)
compared with the control group (54.8%, 17 of 32). Notably, all 4 patients progressed to severe illness that occurred in the control
group.However, there were 2 patients with mild adverse reactions in the HCQ treatment group.
Significance: Among patients with COVID-19, the use of HCQ could significantly shorten TTCR and promote the absorption of pneumonia.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.22.20040758v2
Preliminære resultater fra Kina ble presentert i et møte med kinesiske myndigheter. Ifølge Gao et al. viser disse resultatene fra om
lag 100 pasienter i en multisenterstudie at klorokinfosfat var bedre enn kontrollbehandlingen for endepunkt som forverring av pneumoni,
bedring av funn på lungebilder, klorokin så ut til å stimulere konvertering til virus negativ og forkorte sykdomsforløpet (4).
Den kjente franske mikrobiologen D. Raoult har nylig publisert en liten studie med hydroksyklorokin, delvis i kombinasjon med azitromycin,
gitt til 20 pasienter med COVID-19. Behandling med hydroksyklorokin (200 mg x 3 i 10 dager) ga signifikant redusert virusmengde i
nasopharynx-prøver på dag 6 sammenlignet med kontrollgruppen.
https://relis.no/content/5096/Dokumentasjon-for-bruk-av-hydroksyklorokin-ved-COVID-19
Helt vanlig at folk slutter opp om et lands ledelse i krisetider. Men etter Trumps pressekonferanse (free-form poetry idioti) den 2. april, ble amerikanere forskrekket.
hvilket uttrykk bør en bruke? skjønnheten i det hele; rettferdigheten ved det hele; ironien…
Prognosis
Half the U.S. Supply of Trump-Touted Virus Drug Now Cut Off
By Lisa Du
6. april 2020, 11:27 CEST
Nearly half the supply of hydroxychloroquine to the U.S. comes from makers in India, a flow that has now been abruptly stanched after the Asian nation banned exports of all forms of the malaria drug touted by President Donald Trump as a “game changer” for treating the coronavirus.
According to data compiled by Bloomberg Intelligence, 47% of the U.S. supply of the drug last year came from India makers. Only a handful of suppliers in the top 10 are non-Indian, such as Actavis, now a subsidiary of Israeli generics giant Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. It’s likely that some of their production facilities are nevertheless located in India, the biggest maker of generic drugs in the world.
India’s export ban on the drug is aimed at ensuring it has enough supply for domestic use after the American president’s endorsement sparked global stockpiling of the medication. As the coronavirus pandemic widens globally, countries competing for supplies have enacted export bans or restrictions on goods from rice in Vietnam to face masks in Germany.
intet er som litt «globalisme»
Så eksperten er skeptisk fordi det ikke finnes bevis for at medisinen fungerer, men demokratene, medløperne, propagandapressen osv. er er kritiske til medisinen for å "ta" Trump?
Kan det være at noen er uenig med Trump fordi han snakker mot bedre viten? Kan Trump faktisk ta feil? Eller er all kritikk en konspirasjon mot Trump?
Trump er allvitende og klok i alle ting. Spesielt når det han sier er i strid med de beste ekspertene i hans egen administrasjon.
Fauci ble hedret av den forferdelige overløperen George Bush, så toppsjefen for medisinsk innsats er helt klart tvilsom og ukyndig, for ikke å si en sabotør.
I mellomtiden forbereder Fox News seg på massive søksmål.
Hmmmm.
GGjestemedlem
Gjest
Mer om Fox-eiernes problemer.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-n...against-coronavirus-lawsuits?via=twitter_page
Nah. Det der vil ikke funke. Saksøker ser ikke ut til å ha noen annen interesse i saken enn å tjene penger, ytringsfriheten står sterkt, og pressens ytringsfrihet spesielt sterkt. Selv når de tar loddrett feil. Advokaten som anlegger sak virker som et nokså spesielt tilfelle:
Murdoch bør ikke bekymre seg så veldig over det der. Denne både tror og håper jeg Fox vinner, selv om de har spredd vrøvl så det rekker.
Geniet strikes back... Obamas skyld alt sammen....
GGjestemedlem
Gjest
Veldig bra. Jeg har alltid likt Derren Brown.
^ Kan ikke skjønne det. Her har vi en fyr som er like uredelig som resten av de Trumphatende mediene.
Han viser et utsnitt fra en pressekonferanse der Trump får et spørsmål om tester spesifikt for Corona
viruset - der reglen (arvet fra Obamaadministrasjonen) var at CDC - og kun CDC - skal utvikle tester for
virus. Det vet vi førte til mangelfull testing i startfasen, så Trump tillot private aktører å komme på banen
- noe som igjen førte til at USA i dag er det landet som tester flest pasienter i verden.
Darren Brown bruker dette utsnittet til å si at Trump skylder på Obamadministrasjonen for manglen på
personlig beskyttelsesutstyr til tross for at det var Trumpadministrasjonen som sendte denslags
utstyr for å hjelpe Kina i deres krise. En avgjørelse som ingen reagerte på det daværende tidspunkt.
Ingen - og da mener jeg ingen - viste i Februar at USA ville ha et enormt behov for denslags utstyr
selv. Til tross for at Demokratene - og deres medløpere i mediene - nå påstår det motsatte.
Darren Browns "blanding av epler og appelsiner" er, for å bruke hans eget ord; discusting.Top White House trade adviser Peter Navarro warned in stark terms about how deadly and economically devastating the coronavirus outbreak could be, weeks before it became a full-blown pandemic.
Navarro delivered the warnings to others at the White House in internal memos in January and February, saying that the United States could see up to 2 million deaths and trillions of dollars in economic damage.
WHITE HOUSE PROJECTS 100-240,000 CORONAVIRUS-RELATED DEATHS
The first Navarro memo was dated Jan. 29 and was addressed to the White House National Security Council, according to The New York Times, which first reported on the document. In it, Navarro made his case for an “immediate travel ban on China.”
In that memo, Navarro also reportedly warned that “the lack of immune protection or an existing cure or vaccine would leave Americans defenseless in the case of a full-blown coronavirus outbreak on U.S. soil.”
“This lack of protection elevates the risk of the coronavirus evolving into a full-blown pandemic, imperiling the lives of millions of Americans,” Navarro wrote in the memo, according to the Times.
Navarro’s first memo came as the president was downplaying the prospect of the virus coming to the U.S., while, at the same time, just days later on Jan. 31 restricting travel from China, after it was reported that COVID-19 was first discovered in China in December 2019 in Wuhan, Hubei province.
The memo reportedly warned of up to $5.7 trillion in economic costs and up to a half-million American deaths in a worst-case scenario.
In late February Navarro penned another memo, this time addressed to the president himself and escalating the warnings.
The Feb. 23 memo, first reported by Axios and confirmed by Fox News, warned that “there is an increasing probability of a full-blown COVID-19 pandemic that could infect as many as 100 million Americans, with a loss of life as many as 1-2 million souls.”
The estimate was ultimately in line with what officials say could have happened without any social distancing measures and other precautions now in place across the country.
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Deborah Birx said last week that without any measures in place to mitigate the virus’ spread, projections jump to between 1.5 and 2.2 million deaths from COVID-19.
But with extensive restrictions in place, they said the coronavirus could still leave 100,000 to 240,000 people in the U.S. dead and millions infected.
In his memo, Navarro outlined such scenarios and called for funding to tackle the problem.
“To minimize economic and social disruptions and loss of life, there is an urgent need for an immediate supplemental appropriation of at least $30 billion dollars [sic] to support efforts at prevention, treatment, inoculation, and diagnostics,” Navarro wrote. “This is NOT a time for penny-pinching or horse trading on the Hill. Uncertainties associated with developing a vaccine and viable treatment options should NOT slow down investments in these high risk, high reward ventures.”
Navarro added: “In this Administration, we take appropriate risks to protect the public. We move in Trump Time to solve problems. We always skate to where the puck might be—in this case a full-blown pandemic.”
Navarro wrote that he believed that the U.S. “CAN develop a vaccine and treatment therapeutics in half the usual time,” and said “we MUST get appropriate protective gear and point of care diagnostics.”
Navarro’s second memo went on to outline the need for additional personal protective equipment.
TRUMP SAYS 'THERE IS A LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL,' AFTER GRIM WARNINGS OF DEATH TOLL RISING
“This is the first line of defense for our health care workers and secondary workers in facilities such as elder care and skilled nursing,” Navarro wrote. “Key items include N-95 facemasks, goggles, gloves, Tyvek suits, ventilator circuits and Positive Air Pressure Respirators (PAPRs).”
Navarro, at the time, called for more than $618 million for PPE and ventilators.
A source told Fox News on Tuesday that many felt that Navarro’s February memo came off as aggressive; however, the source also said that there were some officials within the National Security Council and the White House who tracked along the same lines as Navarro.
Now, the source said, Navarro’s projections were seemingly accurate.
Last week, during a White House Coronavirus Task Force briefing, the president warned that “a very painful two weeks” were ahead.
“The surge is coming, and it’s coming pretty strong,” Trump said.
Yet a day after Navarro's second memo, Trump tweeted: "The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA."
Navarro’s projections of a lack of PPE and ventilators served as a preview of what was to come as hospitals across the nation, specifically in New York, have urged the administration to help provide more necessary equipment and supplies for those on the frontlines.
The inspector general for the Department of Health and Human Services released a report on Monday, which revealed severe shortages of testing supplies and extended waits for results at hospitals across the nation; widespread shortages of PPE which put staff and patients at risk; difficulty maintaining adequate staffing; and shortages of critical supplies, like hand sanitizer, facemasks, toilet paper, linen, disinfectant cleaning supplies and more, as well as materials and logistics support.
On March 27, the United States hit the 100,000 case mark. On April 1, the number of Americans infected doubled to more than 200,000 cases. Just three days later, on Saturday, positive COVID-19 cases topped 300,000.
As of Tuesday, the U.S. reported more than 368,400 positive cases of COVID-19 and more than 10,990 deaths.
U.S. Surgeon General Vice Adm. Jerome Adams issued a dire warning that the coronavirus outbreak has yet to hit its expected peak.
“It’s tragically fitting that we’re talking at the beginning of Holy Week because this is going to be the hardest and saddest week of most Americans’ lives, quite frankly,” Adams said on “Fox News Sunday,” comparing it to historic national tragedies.
“This is going to be our Pearl Harbor moment, our 9/11 moment, only it’s not going to be localized,” he continued. “It’s going to be happening all over the country. And I want America to understand that.”
Omtrent like uredelig som deg?
“It’s not true,” said Rachel Sachs, a Washington University in St. Louis law professor, of Trump’s claim in a phone interview. The Obama administration did attempt to impose a risk-based system of regulation on laboratory developed tests, or LDTs, and introduced draft guidance in 2014. But that guidance was never finalized, and was withdrawn after Trump won the election in 2016. “It never went into effect,” she said, “so it’s not an issue to walk back.”
https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/trumps-misplaced-blame-on-obama-for-coronavirus-tests/
^Trump er desperat etter å finne noen å legge skylden på. Nå anklager han WHO og truer med å trekke midler fra dem. Påstår de skulle erklært pandemi tidligere.
Egentlig underholdende. "Dere skulle beskyttet oss bedre, derfor får dere ikke penger, som ville gjort det mulig å beskytte oss bedre."
Han påstår nå at WHO er "China centric" og aksepterer ikke kritikk av USA.
Men oppegående folk (enkelte her inne unntatt) gjennomskuer ham:
Å komme med løse påstander om egen kompetanse, samt løse påstander om hva andre har skylden for, er det han gjør best. Han slenger ut utsagn som etterfulgt av "jeg tror det er sånn, dette er det jeg har hørt osv", vel vitende om at fansen slikker det i seg. Og fyrer dermed opp om konspirasjonsteorier, faktaskepsis, motsetninger, konflikter og misforståelser.Det er jo det han kan. Kaste ut løse påstander som fakta og når han blir spurt om det sier han "jeg tror det". Når det viser seg at han har tatt feil påstår han at det har han aldri sagt og skylder han på noen andre.GGjestemedlem
Gjest
Gjennomskuer i alle fall propaganda og det å alltid skulle villede med en utvalgt vinkling. Man ser jo gjerne i ettertid at man ikke handlet raskt nok, men den erkjennelsen finner man hos politikere i mange land. At det har vært og er uenighet innen regjering og administrasjon om hva som er best strategi er ikke så vanskelig å forstå. En president må jo til slutt velge hvilke av rådene som mest skal vektlegges. Hvis WHO hadde vert tidligere ute med å erklære pandemi ville nok dette endret tidslinjen på beslutningene.
Så, som alltid er det kanskje en annen forklaring enn idiotforklaring og påstander om barnslig narsissisme. På en måte er det jo blame game, men det handler nok litt mer om interne forhold i regjeringen enn man ellers kan få inntrykk av.
--
Her er en mer redelig oppsummering av hva det handler om. Så kan man gjerne være enig eller uenig med de valgene som ble tatt, men det er en helt annen sak.
--
As Trump administration debated travel restrictions, thousands streamed in from China
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...housands-streamed-in-from-china-idUSKBN21N0EJ
(Reuters) - In defending his strategy against the deadly coronavirus, President Donald Trump repeatedly has said he slowed its spread into the United States by acting decisively to bar travelers from China on Jan. 31.
“I was criticized by the Democrats when I closed the Country down to China many weeks ahead of what almost everyone recommended. Saved many lives,” he tweeted, for instance, on March 2.
But Reuters has found that the administration took a month from the time it learned of the outbreak in late December to impose the initial travel restrictions amid furious infighting.
During that time, the National Security Council staff, the state department and other federal agencies argued about everything from how best to screen for sick travelers to the economic impact of any restrictions, according to two government officials familiar with the deliberations.
The NSC staff ultimately proposed aggressive travel restrictions to high-level administration officials - but it took at least a week more for the president to adopt them, one of the government officials said.
In meetings, Matthew Pottinger, deputy national security adviser and a China expert, met opposition from Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and National Economic Council director Larry Kudlow, said two former NSC officials and one of the government officials involved in the deliberations. The two top aides were concerned about economic fallout from barring travelers from China, the sources said.
Each day that the administration debated the travel measures, roughly 14,000 travelers arrived in the United States from China, according to figures cited by the Trump administration. Among them was a traveler who came from Wuhan to Seattle in mid-January, who turned out to be the first confirmed case in the United States.
On Jan. 22, Trump downplayed the threat posed by the virus, telling CNBC from the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, “We have it totally under control.”
The battle within the White House over whether and how to stop infected travelers from China lasted nine more days.
On Jan. 31, Trump issued a proclamation barring entry of non-U.S. citizens, other than the immediate family of citizens and permanent residents, who had traveled to China within the last two weeks. The restrictions have since been expanded to many other countries.
It is unclear when the president was made aware of the NSC’s proposal and what prompted his decision to act, but the decision followed the World Health Organization’s declaration the day before that the epidemic was a “public health emergency of international concern.”
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention officials told Reuters that they contributed to the decision as part of the administration’s newly convened coronavirus task force.
A Treasury Department spokesperson said that Mnuchin “never objected to the decision to restrict flights from China.”
A White House spokesman, Judd P Deere, said: “Any suggestion that Larry Kudlow objected to restricting flights from China to contain COVID-19 and protect the health of the American people is completely false. Larry fully supported the President’s bold decision.”
In a statement, NSC spokesman John Ullyot said that the council’s early meetings about the coronavirus involved great expertise and robust discussion and were professional.
As of April 4, the coronavirus has infected more than 300,000 people in the United States, and killed over 8,000, according to the Reuters coronavirus tracker. The country has more cases than anywhere else in the world.
The sources for this story, former NSC members, public health officials and others involved in, or briefed on, the administration’s response, spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment on the record.
POPPING A FLARE
The NSC, which operates within the White House to coordinate policies and recommendations involving national security across agencies, was at the center of the effort to formulate the early response to the outbreak.
The council was first notified of the outbreak on the morning of Dec. 31, according to one of the government officials involved, when an NSC official was forwarded an email from a Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) attache in Beijing that had been sent to senior HHS officials the night before.
The “pop-a-flare” notice, as it is known, described strange cases of pneumonia that could not be definitively traced to seasonal flu, said the government official, who saw the message. The email said the Chinese would soon be notifying the World Health Organization, the official said.
On Jan. 3, Dr. Gao Fu, head of China’s disease control agency, informed his U.S. counterpart, Dr. Robert Redfield, director of the CDC, in an emotional telephone call that the outbreak was growing out of control, according to the same federal official and a former NSC official. Both said they had been informed of the details.
Gao’s agency did not respond to a request for comment.
Ullyot, the NSC spokesman, disputed the timeline, saying the council did not learn of the coronavirus outbreak until Jan. 3. The CDC, a part of HHS, confirmed to Reuters that it learned of an outbreak in late December and that the call with Gao occurred Jan. 3.
Health agencies were scrambling to gather information, the two government officials involved in the deliberations said. Questions went back to the U.S. Embassy in Beijing, and experts across the government: How many travelers arrive daily from Wuhan, China, the initial site of the outbreak? What U.S. airports do they fly into? What would be the pros and cons, including costs, of any travel restriction?
In discussions with the NSC, public health officials, including from HHS and CDC, initially argued for the targeted approach of medically screening travelers from Wuhan, as they sifted through information about where and how quickly the virus was spreading, one of the government officials involved said. Public health officials tend not to favor border closures because they can restrict medical response and divert limited resources.
The NSC’s Pottinger was pushing hard for strict travel restrictions - expressing doubt about the truth of the data China was releasing, according to the official.
There was “a lot of yelling, a sign of frustration,” said a former NSC staffer who was not in the meetings but got messages from colleagues in attendance expressing dismay. The person described the messages but did not share them with Reuters. The two current federal officials confirmed the acrimony.
The NSC struggled to reconcile conflicting viewpoints, the two government officials involved said.
The debate delayed the screening of travelers from China by at least a week, one of the officials said. CDC officials ultimately announced enhanced medical screenings for travelers from Wuhan at three international airports, in Los Angeles, San Francisco and New York’s John F. Kennedy, on Jan. 17, expanding them to 20 U.S. airports by Jan. 28.
At one point, during a meeting, Pottinger snapped at health officials that their approach “really has to take a step back,” so that national security interests could shape the response, the official said.
The CDC declined to comment on the debate.
Some former NSC officials who spoke to Reuters traced what they saw as an ineffective response by the council in part to structural changes in 2018 in which former National Security adviser John Bolton had folded the council’s Global Health Security and Biodefense directorate into a larger operation, with the result that pandemic planning was not as great a priority. Others said that, under Bolton, the NSC worked effectively on biopreparedness, but after he departed it lost a number of important experts.
NSC spokesman Ullyot rejected as false the suggestion that the council lacked expertise. The council is staffed by officials with “extensive experience in virology, infectious disease epidemiology, global health security, public health, and emergency response,” he said.
The NSC’s own public health experts were involved in the discussions from the beginning, advocating “early and often” for traveler screening and raising the issue of banning flights from Wuhan, he said.
While the conflict soured the interactions, one of the government officials involved said, data soon emerged that led the health agency officials to agree with Pottinger: A travel restriction for all of China was needed. They saw that there were thousands of travelers arriving daily from Wuhan’s Hubei province to the United States, as well as a rising number of Covid-19 cases reported by the Chinese government beginning in mid-January, the source said.
In its statement to Reuters, the CDC did not directly address what led to its ultimate decision to support the travel restrictions.
By Jan. 24, the staff of the NSC had proposed restricting flights from China, said the government official involved in the deliberations. But as Pottinger met with deputies from other cabinet-level agencies, the recommendation met with resistance because of concerns about spooking the markets and scaring the public, three sources with knowledge of the deliberations told Reuters.
STILL DIVIDED
With opinions still divided, the matter went to top White House aides, at which point Treasury Secretary Mnuchin and National Economic Council director Kudlow argued strongly against the travel restrictions, said two former NSC officials and the government official involved in the deliberations.
In addition to the impact on the stock market, the two top aides expressed concern about the supply chain for everything from semiconductors to ingredients for pharmaceuticals, said one of the government officials involved in the deliberations.
Pottinger was “pleading with Mnuchin and others” to stop travelers from coming, the former NSC official said.
By then, the first known patient in the United States - a man in his 30s who had traveled from Wuhan to Seattle on Jan. 15 – tested positive for the coronavirus disease, COVID-19.
He had slipped through travel screenings because his trip had been broken up, so the Wuhan origin of his trip had not been obvious to customs agents, said the government official with knowledge of the deliberations.
At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, President Trump told CNBC on Jan. 22: “It’s one person coming in from China, and we have it under control. It’s going to be just fine.”
On Jan. 29, the Council of Economic Advisers, which advises the president on economic policy, presented an analysis describing a worst-case scenario of what a pandemic and travel restrictions could do to the economy, according to one of the government officials involved in the deliberations, who read it. The report supported Kudlow and Mnuchin’s arguments against such restrictions and “scared everyone,” the source said.
The next day, at an afternoon meeting of the White House’s newly formed coronavirus task force, as well as other attendees, travel restrictions were still being debated, according to the government official involved in the deliberations and a former NSC official who learned of the meeting from former colleagues.
During the meeting, Mick Mulvaney, then President Trump’s chief of staff, entered the room, telling a smaller group, including Pottinger: “The president wants to see you now,” according to the official involved in the deliberations and the former NSC officials.
Mulvaney referred questions to the White House, which did not respond.
Trump issued the order the next day. By then, the novel coronavirus was already carving a lethal path through a Seattle nursing home.Sist redigert av en moderator:
Problemet er at som verdens mektigste person så kan man ikke skylde på andre. Trump sitter med makten og ansvaret, the buck stops here. Sutringen og ansvarsfraskrivelsen er patetisk og vitner kun om en svak mann med tynn hud og et stort ego. Det er ingen som forventer at Trump skal gjøre alt riktig, dette er ikke enkle avgjørelser og andre statsledere har også feilet i større eller mindre grad, men vil han stå frem som en stor leder så får han rette ryggen for en gangs skyld. Dessverre vet vi alle at det ikke skjer, historien vil felle en nådeløs dom over Donald Trump.
Nettopp. Et utrolig stort ego som skjuler en svært usikker og svak person, og som er ute av stand til å stole på andre. Og da løses det med å være svær i kjeften og ta på seg en maske av ekspertise. Og når det ikke holder, så er det sprangvis tilbaketrekking i åpent lende: Hvem kan jeg skylde på nå? Hva kan jeg si for å få folk til å glemme det jeg sa for en uke siden? Hvem kan jeg ofre for å redde mitt eget skinn? Man skal være usedvanlig blind for ikke å se at det har vært strategien i 3 år.
Og det er det som er greia. Ikke at han ikke har alle svarene, men at han ikke tåler at han ikke har de. Og at han ikke tåler å overstråles ved at andre har bedre svar enn ham selv. Det er oppskriften på en elendig leder, og i særdeleshet i en krisesituasjon. Når alt surrer og går av seg selv, og konsekvensene av dårlige beslutninger først vises etter mange år, er det kanskje ikke så farlig.Sist redigert:
Det er nesten litt fascinerende. Trump ble valgt ved å posere som sterk leder. «I alone can fix.» I posisjon har han hakket løs på alt som kan begrense eller kontrollere hans maktutøvelse. Men når det dukker opp en krise som faktisk krever sterk, sentralisert ledelse skyver han ansvaret fra seg, og over på delstatene og guvernørene. «No responsibility at all.» Selv våkner han tydeligvis opp hver morgen for å finne på noe å si som er så hårreisende at han dominerer nyhetssyklusen denne dagen også. Sterk leder, men bare på TV.Sist redigert:Det verste er ikke at han er som han er og oppfører seg som han gjør. Det verste er at det virker og det er sannsynlig med 4 nye år i det hvite hus. Det er dessverre noe som ikke fungerer hensiktsmessig når moral ikke eksisterer. -
Laster inn…
Diskusjonstråd Se tråd i gallerivisning
-
Laster inn…