On some level it feel sensationalist to talk this way.
It feels like an all-caps-twitter way of talking about the impact of the President's performance.
But actually it just boils down to simple, tragic math.
Can you honestly imagine another any past administration handling this as badly as Trump has?
For that matter, can you imagine any of the other GOP frontrunners from 2016 handling this as badly as Trump has?
Imagine a Rubio, Cruz, or Jeb administration.
I'd disagree strenuously with them on the whole range of standard policy stuff.
But I seriously doubt they'd be blocking expanded testing, listening to Scott Atlas over the CDC, ditching WHO, or telling people not to wear masks.
Rubio and Cruz are complicit in all this now because they're too weak to challenge Trump.
But left to their own devices I suspect they'd default to doing what CDC advised them - if only out of a sense of political self-preservation.
Trump really is singular in this sense.
And the results are clear. Compared to peers like Canada or Germany, we have 117k - 169k more fatalities (proportionally) simply because the leadership of our response has been such a disaster.
The point here isn't that great leadership would have saved 100,000+ lives.
It's that *normal* leadership would have achieved that.
The baseline performance we should expect from any President regardless of party would have achieved that.
Donald Trump's failed leadership is responsible for, conservatively, over 100,000 American deaths.
Saying so should not feel sensationalist.
It's just calling it what it is.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Great thread on how massively difficult "shielding the vulnerable" would be in practice. Far harder than using public health measures to control the virus.
None of the "shielding" advocates are grappling seriously with this.
I have yet to see any of the herd immunity/shielding crowd lay out an affirmative agenda that reckons with:
1) how many would need to be shielded 2) what that shielding would entail 3) what support would be provided 4) at what cost 5) how the vulnerable would be identified
As the thread persuasively lays out, tens of millions would need to be shielded, requiring an ambitious plan to protect them while providing massive social and economic support at tremendous cost.
The Barrington crowd proposes nothing of the kind.
If you're sticking with me to the second tweet, chances are you know that the "cluster approach" has been in place for 15 years now, and orients humanitarian coordination, planning, and operations around the major technical sectors.
It's got problems.
As we, and many before us, have found, the sector-driven logic of the clusters is increasingly at odds with what the system needs from humanitarian coordination.
Humanitarian ops need to be demand driven, integrated across sectors, and devolve power/resources toward the field.
This is helpful update to that chart. Takeaway is much the same. (HT @CT_Bergstrom)
I do think there is a reasonable rationale for looking at the March/April phase a little differently than May/June onward. In early phase we were fighting this much blinder than from summer on.
The states that got hit in the first crest in March/April were largely places with major travel hubs to Europe/China, and dense populations. And due to federal failings they had little preparedness, little support, and a lot less knowledge on how to fight it.
Other states would likely have followed suit if not for the shutdowns that spread across the country from mid-March, and held in place into late April/May.
The shutdowns spared the rest of the country from NYC-like outcomes.