Octopus Overlords

Devin Nunes is trying his darnedest to make the case for the return of the guillotine. Add in Ron Johnson and that psychopath Lt. Governor from Texas just over the last few days. WTF with these guys? Many thought that the GOP was a death cult after Sandy Hook et. al. but this is so over the top that it is striking.

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1245450026421227521

Yojimbo wrote: Wed Apr 01, 2020 4:34 pm

Smoove_B wrote: Wed Apr 01, 2020 12:27 pm Absolutely disgraceful.

I’m a physician at a hospital in NYC and THIS IS THE “PPE” I WAS JUST HANDED for my shift. Our federal government has completely failed its health care workers.

OK, I can agree, but before that your Chief Medical Officer failed, your Supply/Logistic Manager failed, your hospital foundation failed, your Mayor failed, and your state failed you. We have a Federal system of government - it's not supposed to be all things to all people. A government big enough to do all the things some of my fellow Americans want it to do would be big enough to squish us all like so many grapes.

Why call out Fed.gov and let everyone else off the hook here? Scientists and Doctors have been saying for years that pandemics are normal human events - how can an organization run and staffed by doctors not have buildings FULL of supplies for a pandemic?

A pandemic is precisely the kind of scenario that could benefit from federal management. Because it's widespread and hits all fifty states, a unified federal approach makes sense. Having fifty different approaches for one country is madness, particularly when it can set some states against each other.

Yojimbo wrote: Wed Apr 01, 2020 4:34 pm

Why call out Fed.gov and let everyone else off the hook here? Scientists and Doctors have been saying for years that pandemics are normal human events - how can an organization run and staffed by doctors not have buildings FULL of supplies for a pandemic?

Most PPE is disposable and usually 1-use type of gear. Hospitals don't stock buildings FULL of PPE or anything else they don't expect to use in the normal course of business. How can they? Also, PPE is often expirable so often you stock a certain amount of months under normal use. So say you usually use 20 face shields a day, you might stock 1,800 and then your inventory management will monitor usage. As you go through 20, you order 20 more.

When you consider how much supplies hospitals go through on a daily basis, stocking for EPIC PANDEMIC levels of everything is impossible. They have to count on the supply chain. Are they running out of syringes? Saline? They would if they devoted all their storage to pandemic level inventories of PPE.

Now everyone needs a shitload more PPE all at the same time. You cannot manage this at the local or even state level. Not without massive shortfalls based on things like price or local logistics.



If you have a 200 bed hospital you may have 30-40 ventilators and probably rarely see more than 10-15 in use at any given time. Given that they're anywhere from $10K-$50K in price, it's not the kind of equipment you just stick at the end of every bed to gather dust. Well, it wasn't. Nor is it the kind of thing that is overproduced to sit in inventory at a distributor. Now you're looking at using 100-150 at a time. And this too is happening everywhere at the same time.

ImLawBoy wrote: Wed Apr 01, 2020 5:09 pm A pandemic is precisely the kind of scenario that could benefit from federal management. Because it's widespread and hits all fifty states, a unified federal approach makes sense. Having fifty different approaches for one country is madness, particularly when it can set some states against each other.

Yes, but expecting civil servants who are normally tasked with collecting taxes and regulating industries to keep a stockpile of the PPE items that the experts (doctors) don't even bother to keep a stockpile of a special kind of foolishness in my eyes. Can the government help coordinate the manufacture and distribution of PPE - yes. Did they get really, really good at that overnight? - no. Is is fair to expect them to get really, really good in a few days/weeks?

I'm reading Larson's "The Splendid and the Vile" right now and I'm struck by how slow the catastrophe of WWII was compared to this virus. Churchill and others saw what was coming as France capitulated and gave her navy to Germany. It seemed sudden - but not compared to this situation.

I think America did the right thing then (but maybe too slowly because Roosevelt was worried about getting reelected) and I think she will do the right now (after some trial and error).

Are you prepared admit Trump disbanded a White House office focused on pandemic preparedness?

LawBeefaroni wrote: Wed Apr 01, 2020 5:45 pm Now everyone needs a shitload more PPE all at the same time. You cannot manage this at the local or even state level. Not without massive shortfalls based on things like price or local logistics.

If you can't manage it at the state level (if this would be impossible), why could you manage well it at the federal level? The state of NY's GDP was over 1.5 trillion last year. That is more than 50% more that the federal GDP in 1970. CA is even bigger. Plus, there are 50 states who know intimately the situations on the ground in their locales.

Yojimbo wrote: Wed Apr 01, 2020 6:14 pm

ImLawBoy wrote: Wed Apr 01, 2020 5:09 pm A pandemic is precisely the kind of scenario that could benefit from federal management. Because it's widespread and hits all fifty states, a unified federal approach makes sense. Having fifty different approaches for one country is madness, particularly when it can set some states against each other.

Yes, but expecting civil servants who are normally tasked with collecting taxes and regulating industries to keep a stockpile of the PPE items that the experts (doctors) don't even bother to keep a stockpile of a special kind of foolishness in my eyes. Can the government help coordinate the manufacture and distribution of PPE - yes. Did they get really, really good at that overnight? - no. Is is fair to expect them to get really, really good in a few days/weeks?

What "civil servants"? Coordinating manufacturing and distribution of strategic supplies in an emergency is LITERALLY part of FEMA's job.

Dept of Health has a strategic national stockpile of medical supplies for emergencies like this. They delayed using it, then they sent supplies to states disproportionate with what the states had requested (now the PPE supplies are almost exhausted, but the ventilators are still sitting in that stockpile, unused). States are trying to buy the supplies on the open market, and the federal government is literally outbidding them. How do you suggest states buy supplies that are not available for purchase?

Unagi wrote: Wed Apr 01, 2020 6:24 pm Are you prepared admit Trump disbanded a White House office focused on pandemic preparedness?

If this is for me, yes, I do understand that the National Security Council’s global health security office was disbanded. Seems like a hideous move in hindsight.

malchior wrote: Wed Apr 01, 2020 4:50 pm Devin Nunes is trying his darnedest to make the case for the return of the guillotine. Add in Ron Johnson and that psychopath Lt. Governor from Texas just over the last few days. WTF with these guys? Many thought that the GOP was a death cult after Sandy Hook et. al. but this is so over the top that it is striking.

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1245450026421227521

And these are the same people that were whipping people up over Obamacare death panels.

Yojimbo wrote:If this is for me, yes, I do understand that the National Security Council’s global health security office was disbanded. Seems like a hideous move in hindsight.

Was a hideous move AT THE TIME. Because having a pandemic response team is the sort of thing that must be in place before the pandemic, in order to respond to it.

Yojimbo wrote: Wed Apr 01, 2020 6:14 pm

ImLawBoy wrote: Wed Apr 01, 2020 5:09 pm A pandemic is precisely the kind of scenario that could benefit from federal management. Because it's widespread and hits all fifty states, a unified federal approach makes sense. Having fifty different approaches for one country is madness, particularly when it can set some states against each other.

Yes, but expecting civil servants who are normally tasked with collecting taxes and regulating industries to keep a stockpile of the PPE items that the experts (doctors) don't even bother to keep a stockpile of a special kind of foolishness in my eyes. Can the government help coordinate the manufacture and distribution of PPE - yes. Did they get really, really good at that overnight? - no. Is is fair to expect them to get really, really good in a few days/weeks?

I'm reading Larson's "The Splendid and the Vile" right now and I'm struck by how slow the catastrophe of WWII was compared to this virus. Churchill and others saw what was coming as France capitulated and gave her navy to Germany. It seemed sudden - but not compared to this situation.

I think America did the right thing then (but maybe too slowly because Roosevelt was worried about getting reelected) and I think she will do the right now (after some trial and error).

Who is expecting civil servants to do it? Experts did bother to keep a stockpile.

RunningMn9 wrote: Wed Apr 01, 2020 6:38 pm

Yojimbo wrote:If this is for me, yes, I do understand that the National Security Council’s global health security office was disbanded. Seems like a hideous move in hindsight.

Was a hideous move AT THE TIME. Because having a pandemic response team is the sort of thing that must be in place before the pandemic, in order to respond to it.

Did that office stockpile 500,000 level 4 bio-hazard suits and the incoming POTUS destroyed them all? - No. If your argument is that we would be better prepared I think it is very sound. If you argument is that we would not be having shortages right now I cannot agree. A few more bureaucrats arguing about how to respond sooner seems that it would be better than nothing. But how much better is open for debate in my book.

Yojimbo wrote:

RunningMn9 wrote: Wed Apr 01, 2020 6:38 pm

Yojimbo wrote:If this is for me, yes, I do understand that the National Security Council’s global health security office was disbanded. Seems like a hideous move in hindsight.

Was a hideous move AT THE TIME. Because having a pandemic response team is the sort of thing that must be in place before the pandemic, in order to respond to it.

Did that office stockpile 500,000 level 4 bio-hazard suits and the incoming POTUS destroyed them all? - No. If your argument is that we would be better prepared I think it is very sound. If you argument is that we would not be having shortages right now I cannot agree. A few more bureaucrats arguing about how to respond sooner seems that it would be better than nothing. But how much better is open for debate in my book.

I think the point is that we'd be--clearly, inarguably--far better off. For a crisis that's cost the US historically large sums of money and lives, the disbanding of that department saved an amount of $$ that's far less than a rounding error relative to the injury sustained by its disbanding.

It's legacy-defining in its terribleness, and this equation was obvious at the time since the math was so clear even if one assumed we never saw a pandemic nearly this serious.

Yojimbo wrote: Wed Apr 01, 2020 6:55 pmDid that office stockpile 500,000 level 4 bio-hazard suits and the incoming POTUS destroyed them all? - No. If your argument is that we would be better prepared I think it is very sound. If you argument is that we would not be having shortages right now I cannot agree. A few more bureaucrats arguing about how to respond sooner seems that it would be better than nothing. But how much better is open for debate in my book.

As someone that has created an all-hazards emergency response plan for an organization of ~10,000 people, and was also trained/certified under multiple county and State level emergency response plans, I can only comment to what's happening in our own state. However, I can say that our plans have always assumed that the federal government (and their stockpile) would be available to use in the event of an emergency - because that's how it works. States prepare and we're the initial responders, but the federal government's role is to then provide relief/assistance as necessary.

Above and beyond the unthinkable actions of what happened in 2018, the idea that in early January the administration was given a pretty significant assessment of what could happen and then did nothing, is mind-boggling. There was no inventory of the stockpile or confirmation of logistical use. There wasn't a warning issued to high-risk population centers or any assurance resources would be available. Again, things I was assured would happen did not. As I said in March, I am pretty sure we're far beyond negligence at this point and squarely in malfeasance. So many of the deaths that have already happened and a significant number of those yet to come were likely preventable deaths.

The best defense we had against this was advanced notice. It wasn't an earthquake, volcano or tornado. We had months to come up with a plan and start assessing need. There absolutely still would have been issues (shortages, logistical considerations) but the complete inaction by the federal government is inexcusable, full stop.

As if to add injury to injury, many of the fed's ventilators... Apparently don't work.

NYTimes http://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/01/us/po ... ators.html

Zaxxon wrote: Wed Apr 01, 2020 7:01 pm I think the point is that we'd be--clearly, inarguably--far better off. For a crisis that's cost the US historically large sums of money and lives, the disbanding of that department saved an amount of $$ that's far less than a rounding error relative to the injury sustained by its disbanding.

It's legacy-defining in its terribleness, and this equation was obvious at the time since the math was so clear even if one assumed we never saw a pandemic nearly this serious.

You may come from a place where more government is always better. This is what you are arguing above, logically. I come from a place where government is as likely to mess things up as they are to fix things (government being comprised of humans). So "FAR" better off as you put is is a bridge too far for me. I have purchased tools and equipment that fed.gov paid hundreds of thousands for, for pennies. The massive inefficiency of a large government alone is breathtaking.

Do you think its even possible this extra office would have gotten into an ugly public turf war with the POTUS (the NSC being STACKED with holdovers form another government and all)? I just don't think that office would be a panacea for everything that is wrong today and I remain skeptical about move government always being the answer. We have no capability to shrink out federal government so I am loathe to grow it any.

As if to add injury to injury, many of the fed's ventilators... Apparently don't work.

Which they would have figured out if they had done a full inventory in January to figure out where we stood. Instead, Trump needed to hold rallies and go golfing. Did anyone check on Susan Collins? Is she concerned yet?

No, I do not think more government is always better, nor is that assumption a logical conclusion from what I wrote.

Come on.

Smoove_B wrote:

As if to add injury to injury, many of the fed's ventilators... Apparently don't work.

Which they would have figured out if they had done a full inventory in January to figure out where we stood. Instead, Trump needed to hold rallies and go golfing. Did anyone check on Susan Collins? Is she concerned yet?

Or, you know, had they not let the maintenance contract lapse last summer.

I could forgive lack of supplies. At some point someone has to say "That's enough" and unless you have some way to know the future, what seems like enough might not even be close to enough. What's unforgivable to me is the lack of a basic federal plan. Even if it takes leaders some time to realize this is a serious threat, there's no reason the response of the entire country couldn't have been an organized, efficient one. That takes real leadership though, a President who can put together a gameplan and get everyone, such as state governors, on the same page. Seeing things like talking about easing up on the shutdowns in mid April then saying no, it's locked down until the end of April, just proves federal leadership is inept at best. There is no gameplan.

Smoove_B wrote: Wed Apr 01, 2020 7:13 pm As someone that has created an all-hazards emergency response plan for an organization of ~10,000 people, and was also trained/certified under multiple county and State level emergency response plans, I can only comment to what's happening in our own state. However, I can say that our plans have always assumed that the federal government (and their stockpile) would be available to use in the event of an emergency - because that's how it works. States prepare and we're the initial responders, but the federal government's role is to then provide relief/assistance as necessary.

Above and beyond the unthinkable actions of what happened in 2018, the idea that in early January the administration was given a pretty significant assessment of what could happen and then did nothing, is mind-boggling. There was no inventory of the stockpile or confirmation of logistical use. There wasn't a warning issued to high-risk population centers or any assurance resources would be available. Again, things I was assured would happen did not. As I said in March, I am pretty sure we're far beyond negligence at this point and squarely in malfeasance. So many of the deaths that have already happened and a significant number of those yet to come were likely preventable deaths.

The best defense we had against this was advanced notice. It wasn't an earthquake, volcano or tornado. We had months to come up with a plan and start assessing need. There absolutely still would have been issues (shortages, logistical considerations) but the complete inaction by the federal government is inexcusable, full stop.

You are way ahead of me on experience in this arena. I can still hear Dr. Fauci telling Americans not to be worried at all just a few weeks ago. You would think that he was a position to know best; and yet instead of gearing up like you say he was telling us that it is not a problem for the USA.

Yojimbo wrote:

Smoove_B wrote: Wed Apr 01, 2020 7:13 pm As someone that has created an all-hazards emergency response plan for an organization of ~10,000 people, and was also trained/certified under multiple county and State level emergency response plans, I can only comment to what's happening in our own state. However, I can say that our plans have always assumed that the federal government (and their stockpile) would be available to use in the event of an emergency - because that's how it works. States prepare and we're the initial responders, but the federal government's role is to then provide relief/assistance as necessary.

Above and beyond the unthinkable actions of what happened in 2018, the idea that in early January the administration was given a pretty significant assessment of what could happen and then did nothing, is mind-boggling. There was no inventory of the stockpile or confirmation of logistical use. There wasn't a warning issued to high-risk population centers or any assurance resources would be available. Again, things I was assured would happen did not. As I said in March, I am pretty sure we're far beyond negligence at this point and squarely in malfeasance. So many of the deaths that have already happened and a significant number of those yet to come were likely preventable deaths.

The best defense we had against this was advanced notice. It wasn't an earthquake, volcano or tornado. We had months to come up with a plan and start assessing need. There absolutely still would have been issues (shortages, logistical considerations) but the complete inaction by the federal government is inexcusable, full stop.

You are way ahead of me on experience in this arena. I can still hear Dr. Fauci telling Americans not to be worried at all just a few weeks ago. You would think that he was a position to know best; and yet instead of gearing up like you say he was telling us that it is not a problem for the USA.

Citation needed.

Zaxxon wrote: Wed Apr 01, 2020 7:29 pm

Yojimbo wrote:

Smoove_B wrote: Wed Apr 01, 2020 7:13 pm As someone that has created an all-hazards emergency response plan for an organization of ~10,000 people, and was also trained/certified under multiple county and State level emergency response plans, I can only comment to what's happening in our own state. However, I can say that our plans have always assumed that the federal government (and their stockpile) would be available to use in the event of an emergency - because that's how it works. States prepare and we're the initial responders, but the federal government's role is to then provide relief/assistance as necessary.

Above and beyond the unthinkable actions of what happened in 2018, the idea that in early January the administration was given a pretty significant assessment of what could happen and then did nothing, is mind-boggling. There was no inventory of the stockpile or confirmation of logistical use. There wasn't a warning issued to high-risk population centers or any assurance resources would be available. Again, things I was assured would happen did not. As I said in March, I am pretty sure we're far beyond negligence at this point and squarely in malfeasance. So many of the deaths that have already happened and a significant number of those yet to come were likely preventable deaths.

The best defense we had against this was advanced notice. It wasn't an earthquake, volcano or tornado. We had months to come up with a plan and start assessing need. There absolutely still would have been issues (shortages, logistical considerations) but the complete inaction by the federal government is inexcusable, full stop.

You are way ahead of me on experience in this arena. I can still hear Dr. Fauci telling Americans not to be worried at all just a few weeks ago. You would think that he was a position to know best; and yet instead of gearing up like you say he was telling us that it is not a problem for the USA.

Citation needed.

Yeah I'm reasonably sure that didn't happen. He was trying to wrestle with a moron. Fauci might have soft peddled him a little to not get Trump upset but don't worry? Nah...

Zaxxon wrote: Wed Apr 01, 2020 7:29 pm

Yojimbo wrote:

Smoove_B wrote: Wed Apr 01, 2020 7:13 pm As someone that has created an all-hazards emergency response plan for an organization of ~10,000 people, and was also trained/certified under multiple county and State level emergency response plans, I can only comment to what's happening in our own state. However, I can say that our plans have always assumed that the federal government (and their stockpile) would be available to use in the event of an emergency - because that's how it works. States prepare and we're the initial responders, but the federal government's role is to then provide relief/assistance as necessary.

Above and beyond the unthinkable actions of what happened in 2018, the idea that in early January the administration was given a pretty significant assessment of what could happen and then did nothing, is mind-boggling. There was no inventory of the stockpile or confirmation of logistical use. There wasn't a warning issued to high-risk population centers or any assurance resources would be available. Again, things I was assured would happen did not. As I said in March, I am pretty sure we're far beyond negligence at this point and squarely in malfeasance. So many of the deaths that have already happened and a significant number of those yet to come were likely preventable deaths.

The best defense we had against this was advanced notice. It wasn't an earthquake, volcano or tornado. We had months to come up with a plan and start assessing need. There absolutely still would have been issues (shortages, logistical considerations) but the complete inaction by the federal government is inexcusable, full stop.

You are way ahead of me on experience in this arena. I can still hear Dr. Fauci telling Americans not to be worried at all just a few weeks ago. You would think that he was a position to know best; and yet instead of gearing up like you say he was telling us that it is not a problem for the USA.

Citation needed.

Is your Google-fu not working or is your memory that short?
(not sure I have ever posted links here - wish me luck)

Risk of coronavirus in US is minuscule:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/hea ... 787209002/

“The American people should not be worried or frightened by this. It’s a very, very low risk to the United States.”
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/01 ... -in-wuhan/

Thanks for the links (the snark continues to be misplaced).

To be fair, he was saying that before any cases were in the US. And that was also probably assuming the administration would be acting proactively to isolate, test, and contain any cases it did find. From the first article:

Dr. Fauci wrote:If that testing shows the virus has slipped into the country in places federal officials don't know about, "we've got a problem," Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told USA TODAY's Editorial Board Monday.

Here is a accurate caveat in the second article. His radio interview from the first one has a one line quote. Who knows what the context was. The classified briefings apparently sent US Senator's to dump stocks around the time of the 2nd article. It is most likely Fauci wasn't in the loop yet.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will be testing for the coronavirus in people in five major cities who show up at clinics with flu-like symptoms but who test negative for the seasonal varieties.

If that testing shows the virus has slipped into the country in places federal officials don't know about, "we've got a problem," Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told USA TODAY's Editorial Board Monday.

malchior wrote: Wed Apr 01, 2020 7:44 pm Here is a accurate caveat in the second article. His radio interview from the first one has a one line quote. Who knows what the context was. The classified briefings apparently sent US Senator's to dump stocks around the time of the 2nd article. It is most likely Fauci wasn't in the loop yet.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will be testing for the coronavirus in people in five major cities who show up at clinics with flu-like symptoms but who test negative for the seasonal varieties.

If that testing shows the virus has slipped into the country in places federal officials don't know about, "we've got a problem," Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told USA TODAY's Editorial Board Monday.

Well, it proves that you were wrong when you said; "Yeah I'm reasonably sure that didn't happen." for one.

I know March has felt like it was 3 months and 16 days long, but I cannot overstate how quickly things changed. The articles shared above were from 2/17 and 1/28. By way of example, here's a Youtube interview Dr. Fauci gave on 2/12 where you can hear his elevated tone over China and expressing concern it had the potential to travel around the globe. Remember, mid-February we're still not broadly testing people in the US - the first US case was 1/20 (West Coast) and the first NY identified case was on 3/1 (!). We had no idea where the virus was or how widespread it had already become. I suspect Fauci's tone changed rather rapidly in February based on the information he had access to. Remember, he was added to the Task force on 1/30. My take is that he didn't believe it was already in the US - and how could he know? We still aren't doing enough testing and it's friggin' April.

Yojimbo wrote:You may come from a place where more government is always better.

I have a front row seat to the federal govt shit show every day of my life.

More government isn’t always better. The federal government isn’t always the answer.

But sometimes the federal government is the only answer. This is one of those times. The federal government is the only possible entity that can bring the necessary resources to bear to address these kinds of things.

Does it mean they will be successful? No. But they are still the only game in town.

Yojimbo wrote: Wed Apr 01, 2020 7:20 pm I just don't think that office would be a panacea for everything that is wrong today and I remain skeptical about move government always being the answer.

Then what's the answer?

More cowbell?

Something something bootstraps.

Yojimbo wrote: Wed Apr 01, 2020 7:50 pm

malchior wrote: Wed Apr 01, 2020 7:44 pm Here is a accurate caveat in the second article. His radio interview from the first one has a one line quote. Who knows what the context was. The classified briefings apparently sent US Senator's to dump stocks around the time of the 2nd article. It is most likely Fauci wasn't in the loop yet.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will be testing for the coronavirus in people in five major cities who show up at clinics with flu-like symptoms but who test negative for the seasonal varieties.

If that testing shows the virus has slipped into the country in places federal officials don't know about, "we've got a problem," Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told USA TODAY's Editorial Board Monday.

Well, it proves that you were wrong when you said; "Yeah I'm reasonably sure that didn't happen." for one.

Congrats? Like others said that was a long time in Covid-19 time but he wasn't in the loop. It doesn't mean (not prove! - that was the wrong word before) much. Especially since he was dropping caveats that proved to be prescient.

Edit: It's also a side show. The Federal Government had information in January and February. Trump wasn't convinced until this week that this was serious. The last time FEMA fell down on the job...it was another Republican administration with clown administrators. When did they do a good job recently? When Obama was President.

What's the difference? If they bring there vast resources to bear on focused problems they can do lots of good. Unfortunately this administration is loaded with D cast acting leaders. And most importantly the Federal government was ineffective because the President is a huge fucking moron.

RunningMn9 wrote:

Yojimbo wrote:If this is for me, yes, I do understand that the National Security Council’s global health security office was disbanded. Seems like a hideous move in hindsight.

Was a hideous move AT THE TIME. Because having a pandemic response team is the sort of thing that must be in place before the pandemic, in order to respond to it.

Plus the Federal government is the only entity with the power to manage the supply chain. Instead, the Federal government is actively undermining States in the supply chain. It’s a classic market failure which Trump wants the market to correct and not take responsibility for. Stupid.

Trump could have been Churchill and planned ahead. But he went Chamberlin instead to appease his poll numbers.

Zarathud wrote: Wed Apr 01, 2020 8:20 pmTrump could have been Churchill and planned ahead. But he went Chamberlin instead to appease his poll numbers.

The trouble is that Trump is incapable of being either. No President has been more over matched by a crisis in our history.

JFC

https://twitter.com/sangerkatz/status/1 ... 5113474049

The report for this disaster is going to be infuriating to read (unless Trump wins).

Yojimbo wrote:I have purchased tools and equipment that fed.gov paid hundreds of thousands for, for pennies. The massive inefficiency of a large government alone is breathtaking.

Large scale business enterprises are also inefficient. There are used office furniture and restaurant equipment resellers. Costco, Aldi and many other surplus marketmakers take advantage and profit from inefficiencies.

Counting inefficient pennies over preventable deaths is stupidly short-sighted. The “bloat” in emergency response is a sunk cost for those times when you need it.

You’re saying fire departments aren’t efficient because there’s not a fire everyday. Or insurance is inefficient because claims haven’t been made yet. Or food safety isn’t efficient because it results in food being tossed. Or building tolerances for load bearing walls should be shrunk because they’re inefficient and walls don’t usually collapse. And then being surprised that all of those foreseeable things happened and we’re now fucked.

El Guapo wrote:JFC

https://twitter.com/sangerkatz/status/1 ... 5113474049

Welcome. Stay awhile.