I've heard there are budget cuts being done, they've completely gutted the staff of the CDC.
Morons in charge seems to be a leading factor.
Morons in charge seems to be a leading factor.
> TRUMP: No…I’m a business person, I don’t like having thousands of people around when you don’t need them…we can get ‘em back really quickly.
https://twitter.com/ddiamond/status/1232829064194469893
This is not the correct approach for an organization responsible for early warnings and preparation.
https://federalnewsnetwork.com/navy/2020/01/for-new-navy-chi...
It's just that Trump obviously applies double standards here: while the military is fine to burn through billions without supplying immediate value (outside of that provided by its mere existence) for a large part of that money, the CDC as a civil organization is apparently not allowed do to the very same thing, even when it costs much less money in comparison. And that's what api obviously wanted to point out. I can't see too much satire in that.
The point was that the cost of saving money is effectiveness.
Clearly, this isn't always the case, there is a difference between bloat/overpricing/unnecessary spending vs cut backs that hinder operation ability.
Except that the majority of them didn't, of course...
Yes, they have, see the National Popular Vote movement. Also, it's not just the electoral college, it's also the Senate which is actually a bigger problem, and exacerbates the EC problem, and whose antidemocratic character is actually the one thing the Constitution prohibits altering permanently (the slave trade had a similar, but temporary, protection.)
Of course all the EC is protected against popular change by change mechanisms which distort power in the same direction as the distortion in the EC and Senate do.
> so that means the majority is OK with the system
No, what the actual failure to implement a change despite a substantial movement directed at it means is that the minority which is advantaged by the system and which has a veto over change because it's also advantaged by the mechanism which is necessary to use to change the system is okay with it.
> They've had well over 200 years to change it now...
No. They haven't; other people (facing similar barriers) may have, but even if failure to overcome those institutional barriers implied acceptance, the failure of people in the past wouldn't imply acceptance of the present majority.
https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-electoral-college-histo...
I get that approximation is subjective, but I'm not sure 19% is what most (or even “roughly half”, even by your apparent standard, of) people would consider “roughly half”.
Substantially less than half the voters voted for it, while more than half voted for one specific alternative.
> Non-voters do not count in a democratic system.
They certainly count as part of the country. And, to the extent that they are nonvoters because they are systematically excluded rather than than voluntarily abstaining, the system isn't democratic to start with.
But, that aside, in any case, in a democratic system, an option with minority support in the electorate doesn't get selected over one supported by the majority, so I'm not sure why you are raising what happens in a democratic system to defend your argument, since it instead defeats it.
You mean, ”...what most of them voted against”.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/31/coronavirus-china-trump...
We've seen this all before and it's become so predictable.
With less confidence, I predict people who get sick, have friends and family get sick, and/or watch their 401k value drop 25% in a month will develop antibodies to certain types of fake news.
With 100% confidence, I predict those people will use all of the things you mention there to further increase the political divide and entrench their already solidified world and political views.
It's practically written in stone at this point.
That's a bit more influential than a liked facebook post with false numbers.
The CDC itself isn't majorly affected and day-to-day operations can continue as normal following the standard playbook. Especially at the local and state level.
However, the Federal pandemic response teams have been gutted, positions not filled, and so we don't have the leadership to coordinate a nationwide response as new facts are discovered by the Executive Branch.
People fuck up, that's what people do, leaders catch and acknowledge failure early and try to fix it. Unfortunately, at this point, people will die that didn't have to. And that's going to be because:
1. Tons of people weren't tested that should have been.
2. People can't afford to get a test because of the health insurance situation in this country.
Aggressive no cost testing would help, I'm sure trump is going to announce that here any minute for a problem that he doesn't think is real.
You say that there are no sides, but end by railing on trump.
You say that the reason for failure doesn't matter, but provide a list of reasons.
You claim that health insurance is the cause of no testing, when the article stated that the CDC refused to conduct or approve testing.
If you sentiment is that this is not the time to focus on partisanship, I wholeheartedly agree. If you sentiment is we should be solution minded, I wholeheartedly agree.
The focus should be on determining what we can do NOW to save the most lives. There will be plenty of time later to assign blame and discuss long term fixes.
He means it's not a partisan thing. Trump is still the person calling the shots.
> You say that the reason for failure doesn't matter, but provide a list of reasons.
I think you're misunderstanding here on what the reasons he's referring to, which are why we're in this situation - those don't matter. The reasons that he provided are the reasons why this is an issue.
It appears that there simply aren't enough test kits available for wide-spread testing, so it's rational for CDC to try to use what they have wisely. It also appears that we'd be in that situation no matter who had won in 2016.
Stop making politics a spectator sport. There's lives on the fucking line.
Lives are always on the line when it comes to disease, but we have never placed an infinite value on human life. By your logic and morality, the CDC should receive additional funding and staffing until there are 0 deaths from disease every year, regardless of diminishing returns. What if increasing funding and staffing of the CDC by 100x reduced the incidence of flu-related deaths by 10%, would your justification mandate this?
To call the cuts "needless" and justify it by arguing that "there are lives on the line" is simply not a good argument unless you are willing to take the argument to its extreme conclusion. If instead what you are arguing is that you believe that the previous budget and staffing was at a correct figure, and that you believe that the increase in body count that will come as a result of the adjustment of that figure (which I doubt is knowable at this moment at time, or if it is even greater than 0) is not a worthwhile tradeoff, then that is a completely different argument.
The argument made was that cutting the CDC, and leadership related to global pandemics was probably a bad idea now that we may be experiencing one. Not that we should spend all of our money on the CDC regardless of returns.
https://storage.needpix.com/rsynced_images/perspective-37858...
Basically, staring at one of the shadows on the wall and declaring confidently that you know what the shape of the solid is that produced it.
This kind of capacity takes years to develop even if you can cut it quickly.
Dont know if anyone is still keeping tabs on this thread, but apparently Trump's "CDC budget cuts" are a falsehood. He proposed cuts but was overruled by congress. In fact, CDC received an increase in funding. See the following link:
https://apnews.com/49de80242dd8b58bd34af7cb19f1323a
> MIKE BLOOMBERG: “There’s nobody here to figure out what the hell we should be doing. And he’s defunded — he’s defunded Centers for Disease Control, CDC, so we don’t have the organization we need. This is a very serious thing.” — Democratic presidential debate Tuesday.
JOE BIDEN, comparing the Obama-Biden administration with now: “We increased the budget of the CDC. We increased the NIH budget. ... He’s wiped all that out. ... He cut the funding for the entire effort.”
THE FACTS: They’re both wrong to say the agencies have seen their money cut. Bloomberg is repeating the false allegation in a new ad that states the U.S. is unprepared for the virus because of “reckless cuts” to the CDC. Trump’s budgets have proposed cuts to public health, only to be overruled by Congress, where there’s strong bipartisan support for agencies such as the CDC and NIH. Instead, financing has increased.
I certainly cant. And as shameful and sad as it sounds, until people start dying.. I don't see much movement on this.
I would prefer to have more people looking into this than less.. The idea of err on the side of caution really does apply right now.
I haven't looked into the details. So far this entire thread has made me conclude nobody else has either - instead they are spinning it into good/bad trump while pretending to be neutral.