Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VII (threadbanned users listed in OP)

amandstu

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Over a week ago there was ones where Fauci didn't even attend. I'm not sure we are seeing any trend in relation to Fauci and the briefings?

And when Fauci is sacked it will be "He was over rated" "He was a democrat" "He was a never Trumper" "he didn't get on with his colleagues" "He wanted to go" "He looked tired" "He was doing a great job...."

And then it will be "Tony who"?

Hopefully NY is going to flatten the curve and hopefully we do too.

Leroy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

And it’s another argument for that respirator reserve not being immediately dispatched to New York. There are counties in the US without a single respirator. Granted, they are large and generally empty, with little chance of transmission, but if the person behind the desk of the county store gets it, the whole county has a problem.
We’re still in the early stages of this, NY may peak first, that doesn’t necessarily imply that it’ll peak hardest.

Wait, what? Don't send it to the person that is actually sick now because someone, somewhere might get sick in the future?

Quin_Dub

Leroy42 wrote: »

Wait, what? Don't send it to the person that is actually sick now because someone, somewhere might get sick in the future?

This is the thing about the Ventilators , it's not like they can't be moved on to somewhere else in a few weeks time..

I'd maybe buy into an argument about holding back a strategic stockpile of a consumable thing like Medicines or the like , but it makes no sense for something like this.

New York need them right now - Maybe Idaho or wherever will need them in 3 or 4 weeks time , but if that's the case they can be moved on at that stage..

Penn

Quin_Dub wrote: »

This is the thing about the Ventilators , it's not like they can't be moved on to somewhere else in a few weeks time..

I'd maybe buy into an argument about holding back a strategic stockpile of a consumable thing like Medicines or the like , but it makes no sense for something like this.

New York need them right now - Maybe Idaho or wherever will need them in 3 or 4 weeks time , but if that's the case they can be moved on at that stage..

Will they be able to be moved on though? Because I think as the rates rise and especially in high-population areas like New York, I don't know if the numbers would fall enough that the ventilators could be given back to the rural areas where numbers might be only starting to rise.

I think it could be a case that the rural facilities see that they might be hit later but they'll still be hit, and if they give away their ventilators they might not get them back when it does.

check_six

Penn wrote: »

Will they be able to be moved on though? Because I think as the rates rise and especially in high-population areas like New York, I don't know if the numbers would fall enough that the ventilators could be given back to the rural areas where numbers might be only starting to rise.

I think it could be a case that the rural facilities see that they might be hit later but they'll still be hit, and if they give away their ventilators they might not get them back when it does.

You could just order up a few more from a manufacturer in the meantime, I suppose.

Christy42

Penn wrote: »

Will they be able to be moved on though? Because I think as the rates rise and especially in high-population areas like New York, I don't know if the numbers would fall enough that the ventilators could be given back to the rural areas where numbers might be only starting to rise.

I think it could be a case that the rural facilities see that they might be hit later but they'll still be hit, and if they give away their ventilators they might not get them back when it does.

The rural locations don't have them now. They are in a stockpile gathering dust because New York isn't going to vote Trump in November.

salmocab

Penn wrote: »

Will they be able to be moved on though? Because I think as the rates rise and especially in high-population areas like New York, I don't know if the numbers would fall enough that the ventilators could be given back to the rural areas where numbers might be only starting to rise.

I think it could be a case that the rural facilities see that they might be hit later but they'll still be hit, and if they give away their ventilators they might not get them back when it does.

Even if they can’t be moved if you leave out geography using them now means you gain that extra 3 weeks of use. Not using them now is political and that’s no way to run anything let alone a country.

Manic Moran

I’m sure they can be moved around the country.

But can you imagine the fallout if all 20,000 get distributed to NY, LA and a Seattle this week (the current hot spots), then Chicago and Baltimore start to get hit harder in two weeks’ time? What New York hospital is going to voluntarily take folks off the respirators because Chicago is now hurting even more badly on a per person basis? It certainly doesn’t seem likely that there will be excess capacity next month. Are we going to send the FBI to confiscate the things, because New York and LA have had their turn, now it’s the turn of Chicago?

When the trends have been established, and a fair idea of which areas will need them most in the long term (this is going to last months, right?) that’s when the reserve should be distributed. Once distributed, it seems unlikely that they will be released for reallocation. New production will assist, but I have seen nothing indicating that that will cover all requirements either. It seems reasonable that some of the reserve should be dipped into now, maybe a few hundred to one or two thousand. Issueing it all right now is short-sighted.

Penn

salmocab wrote: »

Even if they can’t be moved if you leave out geography using them now means you gain that extra 3 weeks of use. Not using them now is political and that’s no way to run anything let alone a country.

I agree, just proposing what rationale those States (rather than Trump) may be using to avoid passing them on.

BonnieSituation

Manic Moran wrote: »

I’m sure they can be moved around the country.

But can you imagine the fallout if all 20,000 get distributed to NY, LA and a Seattle this week (the current hot spots), then Chicago and Baltimore start to get hit harder in two weeks’ time? What New York hospital is going to voluntarily take folks off the respirators because Chicago is now hurting even more badly on a per person basis? It certainly doesn’t seem likely that there will be excess capacity next month. Are we going to send the FBI to confiscate the things, because New York and LA have had their turn, now it’s the turn of Chicago?

When the trends have been established, and a fair idea of which areas will need them most in the long term (this is going to last months, right?) that’s when the reserve should be distributed. Once distributed, it seems unlikely that they will be released for reallocation. New production will assist, but I have seen nothing indicating that that will cover all requirements either. It seems reasonable that some of the reserve should be dipped into now, maybe a few hundred to one or two thousand. Issueing it all right now is short-sighted.

In a country that values the dollar over lives I find it fascinating that you don't think doctors won't be able to make difficult decisions in the coming weeks.

In Italy they have had to make just those very same decisions.I don't think that is beyond the wit of doctors in NY or anywhere else to just treat as appropriate and to allocate resources as is necessary.

To stockpile ventilators in a "just in case" scenario makes no moral or medical sense. And you know it.

eire4

BonnieSituation wrote: »

In a country that values the dollar over lives I find it fascinating that you don't think doctors won't be able to make difficult decisions in the coming weeks.

In Italy they have had to make just those very same decisions.I don't think that is beyond the wit of doctors in NY or anywhere else to just treat as appropriate and to allocate resources as is necessary.

To stockpile ventilators in a "just in case" scenario makes no moral or medical sense. And you know it.

In this current crisis there is absolutely no justification at all. It is utterly unconscionable.

Manic Moran

BonnieSituation wrote: »

In a country that values the dollar over lives I find it fascinating that you don't think doctors won't be able to make difficult decisions in the coming weeks.

In Italy they have had to make just those very same decisions.I don't think that is beyond the wit of doctors in NY or anywhere else to just treat as appropriate and to allocate resources as is necessary.

To stockpile ventilators in a "just in case" scenario makes no moral or medical sense. And you know it.

Triage is a lot simpler for someone to do when you are faced with the two people in question. It’s a little more difficult when you are told you’re not given a choice, because of issues outside of your ability to control, which are purely academic to you, and a thousand miles away. And the political optics are horrible.

Wait, what? Don't send it to the person that is actually sick now because someone, somewhere might get sick in the future?

I don’t think there’s any “might” about it. The number of cases is going to exceed the number of ventilators, reserve or not, and people are going to die because of it. The Federal government’s responsibility is to the nation, not the State which got hit first. They’re going to get distributed, but they should get distributed to whichever region is getting hit hard in comparison to their pre-existing ability to cope. Illinois would not be very happy if their death rate is higher than New York’s because New York got all the ventilators first and every ventilator in the country is in use. I see no reason many (if any) will go to Oklahoma or the other rural states, we have plenty enough big cities in the country to use up capacity.

salmocab

Manic Moran wrote: »

I don’t think there’s any “might” about it. The number of cases is going to exceed the number of ventilators, reserve or not, and people are going to die because of it. The Federal government’s responsibility is to the nation, not the State which got hit first.

But more people will die if the ventilators are not used as soon as they are needed where they are needed. A business analogy would be sweating your assets. Keeping things back from use now let’s extra people die, it changes who dies but also increases the numbers. That’s political not medical.

BonnieSituation

Manic Moran wrote: »

Triage is a lot simpler for someone to do when you are faced with the two people in question. It’s a little more difficult when you are told you’re not given a choice, because of issues outside of your ability to control, which are purely academic to you, and a thousand miles away. And the political optics are horrible.

You completely misunderstood the point. In Italy for example they are sweating the likes of ventilators an doing what all good doctor's do, they're using them on people who have the best chance of recovery.

Very soon no one will be given a choice, but to make a choice not to use a ventilator on the off-chance that in 3 weeks time someone in Tacoma may need it is barbaric.

FatherTed

Things have gone to shyte. To sit and watch what happened to China and do absolutely nothing to prepare for what was coming is criminal. It was always going to come. This talk of oh lets all go to church on Easter and things will be tremendous is utter stupidity.
Check out this NY hospital doctor's story: https://www.nytimes.com/video/nyregion/100000007052136/coronavirus-elmhurst-hospital-queens.html?smid=fb-share&fbclid=IwAR12O2Btpe844h6AFo7sOPxWzbJTsdV32X75R0Imj-1jO-DK2GuGlHN8f-w

Manic Moran

salmocab wrote: »

But more people will die if the ventilators are not used as soon as they are needed where they are needed. A business analogy would be sweating your assets. Keeping things back from use now let’s extra people die, it changes who dies but also increases the numbers. That’s political not medical.

Which people? How many days of life are saved? Lets make this a more practical example. Presume this is going to last three months.

Let's say everything goes to city A. They don't have enough ventilators anyway, but they have two for every three people who need them. They get a three-week headstart on city B.

City B is three weeks behind on the curve. They get one ventilator for every three people.

If you distribute them immediately, yes, you get an extra three week's worth of lives saved. However, in the middle of the crisis, assuming no redistribution, you will see that the nature of them is different. City A may be able to say "We have enough that we can save everyone under 75 years old. Sorry older folks, but if it's between a 75 year old and a 95-year-old, the septuagenarian gets it"

Obviously that isn't going to be the only criterion. Maybe we also factor in heart health, lungs, whatever, but we'll keep it simple for the example.

Meanwhile, in City B, they only have enough that they have to say "sorry, guys, if you're over 50, we can't spare a ventilator". Suddenly that's a whole hell of a lot of life-days lost. A lot of grandkids who won't know their grandparents. That sort of thing.

The trade you are making by immediate distribution is that in the height of the crisis two 75-year-olds in city A live an extra ten years each to 85 instead of a 50-year-old living 35 years to 85. (Or in the reverse perspective, you are choosing to let two 60-year-olds die as opposed to one 90-year old)

Not quite so cut and dry now, is it? If you distribute them more evenly, then maybe overall it becomes "Everyone over 65, you're out of luck"

Do we know yet where these cities will be? We know that City A is New York or Los Angeles. We're too early in the identification phase to know if City B will be Chicago, Baltimore or Orlando. But there will be a City B.

It's not purely a matter of ventilators sitting idly by to save lives. How many ventilators are currently sitting in readiness in Ireland which could be used in Spain or Italy where people are dying now? Why haven't they been shipped to EU colleages?

Christy42

People are f'ing dying in New York and all you can do is try and work out how many 50 year olds a 75 year old is worth?!? We don't know how hard different places are going to get hit or if some places will flatten the curve successfully. We do know New York needs them.

People need those respirators. If Trump says he is a war time president then this should be a war crime.

Finally your argument makes no sense from Trump's perspective. He thinks the country will be up and running again by Easter. So why is he withholding them. He doesn't think there is going to be a big splurge elsewhere.

salmocab

Manic Moran wrote: »

Which people? How many days of life are saved? Lets make this a more practical example. Presume this is going to last three months.

Let's say everything goes to city A. They don't have enough ventilators anyway, but they have two for every three people who need them. They get a three-week headstart on city B.

City B is three weeks behind on the curve. They get one ventilator for every three people.

If you distribute them immediately, yes, you get an extra three week's worth of lives saved. However, in the middle of the crisis, assuming no redistribution, you will see that the nature of them is different. City A may be able to say "We have enough that we can save everyone under 75 years old. Sorry older folks, but if it's between a 75 year old and a 95-year-old, the septuagenarian gets it"

Obviously that isn't going to be the only criterion. Maybe we also factor in heart health, lungs, whatever, but we'll keep it simple for the example.

Meanwhile, in City B, they only have enough that they have to say "sorry, guys, if you're over 50, we can't spare a ventilator". Suddenly that's a whole hell of a lot of life-days lost. A lot of grandkids who won't know their grandparents. That sort of thing.

The trade you are making by immediate distribution is that in the height of the crisis two 75-year-olds in city A live an extra ten years each to 85 instead of a 50-year-old living 35 years to 85. (Or in the reverse perspective, you are choosing to let two 60-year-olds die as opposed to one 90-year old)

Not quite so cut and dry now, is it? If you distribute them more evenly, then maybe overall it becomes "Everyone over 65, you're out of luck"

Do we know yet where these cities will be? We know that City A is New York or Los Angeles. We're too early in the identification phase to know if City B will be Chicago, Baltimore or Orlando. But there will be a City B.

But they can be redistributed if needs be. Your solution means more people die you’ve used figures to give a case that’s not set in stone. After this notional 3 weeks city A could be told to make the decisions based on having the lower number of units available, then they can be transported as people come off the units for whatever reason. This way instead of not being in use for 21 days they are not in use for 2 or 3 days.
It’s not cut and dry your right about that.

Manic Moran

Christy42 wrote: »

People are f'ing dying in New York and all you can do is try and work out how many 50 year olds a 75 year old is worth?!? We don't know how hard different places are going to get hit or if some places will flatten the curve successfully. We do know New York needs them.

Isn't that the point of triage? To decide who should receive attention and who should not? Based presumably on likeliness of survival and future productivity. And your second point is also true and matches mine: We don't know. Decisions should not be taken on the basis of incomplete information.

The Phantom Jipper

Letting people die in New York to potentially save hypothetical patients in Chicago three weeks later is an absurd approach to take. Baffled how this is actually being discussed.

StringerBell

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

Letting people die in New York to potentially save hypothetical patients in Chicago three weeks later is an absurd approach to take. Baffled how this is actually being discussed.

Welcome to the internet, where giving ground in an argument no matter how absurd it may be is just not really the done thing. We then enter the circular period, the points don't change, just the wording until one just stops responding. It is important to note however that this not responding is not in any way to be interpreted as giving ground, at all.

hetuzozaho

Manic Moran wrote: »

Isn't that the point of triage? To decide who should receive attention and who should not?

Is it often done with hypothetical patients vs actual ones?

Christy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

Isn't that the point of triage? To decide who should receive attention and who should not? Based presumably on likeliness of survival and future productivity. And your second point is also true and matches mine: We don't know. Decisions should not be taken on the basis of incomplete information.

Sure. When you have to treat a 75 and a 50 year old you have to make that decision. Right now you haven't got a clue where the line in city B will be drawn if you do or don't send ventilators to New York. You are discussing hypotheticals when you have an actual situation. Do you send them to city B? What about a city C or D?

How long do you let these sit until you actual use the ventilators that can save lives?

kowloon

Leroy42 wrote: »

Wait, what? Don't send it to the person that is actually sick now because someone, somewhere might get sick in the future?

I'd say there's a fear of sending them all off to NY and then the rest of the US having a hissy fit when it comes to their turn and there's no reserve left. A political decision. Personally, I think every machine not in use when there's a patient in need is a failure and a disgrace.

VinLieger

Looks like the states will deffinitely be overtaking China and Italy tomorrow on total infections if not today, wonder what kind of a tantrum the orange toddler will throw

TomOnBoard

All of this back and forth about Ventilators is not allowing for the additional fact that the Defense Production Act can be used to INSiST that massive numbers of Ventilators be manufactured NOW.

3 weeks of flat out production would then be available for the next cities and states to need them with constant increases every weeks thereafter for as long as needed.

ONLY the Federal Govt can invoke the DPA. But what are they doing? Saying there's no need because industry is volunteering. Ridiculous!

Leroy42

kowloon wrote: »

I'd say there's a fear of sending them all off to NY and then the rest of the US having a hissy fit when it comes to their turn and there's no reserve left. A political decision. Personally, I think every machine not in use when there's a patient in need is a failure and a disgrace.

Oh I totally agree that it is a political decision, Manic tried to dress it up as something else.

Send all these to where they are needed now, and use the DPA to get manufacturers to make whatever they feel will be necessary. Why has Trump not invoked it? No idea.

But the greatest country in the world, the richest, biggest economy, is forcing doctors to decide who lives and who dies. Not because of a lack of resources, but in case they might be needed at some future time.

There is a pretty straightforward way to deal with this. Use the DPA to get manufacturers to make loads more.

Cody montana

VinLieger wrote: »

Looks like the states will deffinitely be overtaking China and Italy tomorrow on total infections if not today, wonder what kind of a tantrum the orange toddler will throw

Seems to be exploding in many states now.
Not just New York and California.

Leroy42

3.3m jobless claims in one week!

The 3.3 million figure was seasonally adjusted. The raw numerical increase, 2.9 million claims, also shattered records. The previous record increase was about 700,000 claims in 1982.

. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/26/unemployment-claims-numbers-release-150052

Seriously, Trump said they would go from 15 cases to Zero in a matter of days and he has just seen a record, in jobless claims? And none of his supporters seem to asking how he managed such a complete and utter balls up?

As I saw on another article, this was actually a perfect time for an authoritarian like Trump. He could have controlled everything, he had large swathes of voters willing to do whatever he demanded. But instead he botched it. He bottled it. He tried to run away and then reverted to refusing the reality he, and the country faces.

TomOnBoard

Leroy42 wrote: »

Oh I totally agree that it is a political decision, Manic tried to dress it up as something else.

Send all these to where they are needed now, and use the DPA to get manufacturers to make whatever they feel will be necessary. Why has Trump not invoked it? No idea.

But the greatest country in the world, the richest, biggest economy, is forcing doctors to decide who lives and who dies. Not because of a lack of resources, but in case they might be needed at some future time.

There is a pretty straightforward way to deal with this. Use the DPA to get manufacturers to make loads more.

Totally Political! The other arguments are being used simply to justify the political position.

Remember, Trump has already said that Governors of ANY State who wants to get Federal help had better 'kiss the ring' and be nice to him! Allowing runaway narcissism in a leader does have to be paid for by attitudes like these infecting political decision making.

Red States and Cities will benefit from Federal help.... Blue States and Cities- not so much!