NEJM recommends voting "dangerously incompetent" POTUS out of office
-
A number of the editors, if not all, are hardcore leftists. I’ve had conversations with a number of people like the editors, they believe in anti-democrat form of government where bureaucrats like themselves manage peoples’ lives. These people are deran-ged.
They should all move to CCP China, where they can live out their fantasies of authoritarian government.
-
In all fairness, these editors do possess the necessary medical expertise to understand that covid is a dangerous pandemic that has kil/led a lot of people, and that it would be good to have a president who didn't deny that simple, obvious fact for his own political benefit.
-
In all fairness, these editors do possess the necessary medical expertise to understand that covid is a dangerous pandemic that has kil/led a lot of people, and that it would be good to have a president who didn't deny that simple, obvious fact for his own political benefit.
I don't understand why medical scientists are considered the "experts" on covid. "Medical expertise" is not what's required to understand this pandemic. I have family members who are biology professors, and I understand the situation in more depth than they do. Yes, they are experts for molecular biology, how the virus wears down the immune system, etc.. how to provide care to patients who have it. But none of that is what's controversial.
What's controversial and important for policy is all the macro stuff: exactly how much do cloth masks work, how does wearing masks affect social distancing, how far can the virus spread (they can't even decide whether it can travel more than 6 feet), is it through aeresolization. Quantitatively how does R0 respond to temperature (winter is coming), contact tracing, social distancing. How does the spatial heterogeneity of R0 affect spread and policy decisions. People who are good at this kind of thing have a completely different background closer to economics and statistics.
-
In all fairness, these editors do possess the necessary medical expertise to understand that covid is a dangerous pandemic that has kil/led a lot of people, and that it would be good to have a president who didn't deny that simple, obvious fact for his own political benefit.
I don't understand why medical scientists are considered the "experts" on covid. "Medical expertise" is not what's required to understand this pandemic. I have family members who are biology professors, and I understand the situation in more depth than they do. Yes, they are experts for molecular biology, how the virus wears down the immune system, etc.. how to provide care to patients who have it. But none of that is what's controversial.
What's controversial and important for policy is all the macro stuff: exactly how much do cloth masks work, how does wearing masks affect social distancing, how far can the virus spread (they can't even decide whether it can travel more than 6 feet), is it through aeresolization. Quantitatively how does R0 respond to temperature (winter is coming), contact tracing, social distancing. How does the spatial heterogeneity of R0 affect spread and policy decisions. People who are good at this kind of thing have a completely different background closer to economics and statistics.Fair enough. But pretty much everyone agrees that orange is a disaster.
-
In all fairness, these editors do possess the necessary medical expertise to understand that covid is a dangerous pandemic that has kil/led a lot of people, and that it would be good to have a president who didn't deny that simple, obvious fact for his own political benefit.
These editors don’t understand that many Americans value their liberties and won’t allow government to impose endless restrictions on rights enshrined by the constitution.
Even if T went along with the NEJM’s macro plan, you would still see massive revolts by a number of people.
-
In all fairness, these editors do possess the necessary medical expertise to understand that covid is a dangerous pandemic that has kil/led a lot of people, and that it would be good to have a president who didn't deny that simple, obvious fact for his own political benefit.
These editors don’t understand that many Americans value their liberties and won’t allow government to impose endless restrictions on rights enshrined by the constitution.
Even if T went along with the NEJM’s macro plan, you would still see massive revolts by a number of people.Yes, this was clear from the way they describe China's policy in glowing terms without any consideration of political realities or that there are tradeoffs to be made. This of course is Fauci's problem too.
-
In all fairness, these editors do possess the necessary medical expertise to understand that covid is a dangerous pandemic that has kil/led a lot of people, and that it would be good to have a president who didn't deny that simple, obvious fact for his own political benefit.
These editors don’t understand that many Americans value their liberties and won’t allow government to impose endless restrictions on rights enshrined by the constitution.
Even if T went along with the NEJM’s macro plan, you would still see massive revolts by a number of people.Yes, this was clear from the way they describe China's policy in glowing terms without any consideration of political realities or that there are tradeoffs to be made. This of course is Fauci's problem too.
Agreed. The expert class has more control over people’s lives in China, which is why they get glowing reviews by our scientists and experts.
-
Honestly it’s a pretty good editorial. Not sure they make any false factual claims, and the argument seems pretty solid: 200k people are dead, other countries’ experiences show it didn’t have to be this way, so the people at the helm should get the boot. Seems reasonable as far as it goes whatever else you think about basically anything. I only wish they made clearer that it’s not enough for the man in charge to go, but also for the CDC and FDA to be radically overhauled to address their massive incompetence during the early days of the pandemic which basically doomed us.
-
Honestly it’s a pretty good editorial.
It's a dishonest political screed. It wasn't Trump who stopped us from having large-scale testing early on, it was the author's colleagues working as professional bureaucrats at government agencies who established layers of red tape and kept insising they almost had a government-approved test ready. Trump didn't set the PPE reserves on fire, they were used up in Obama's 1st of 8 years in office and never replenished.
Trump could have done a better job. He could have put someone like Balaji Srinivasan in charge of beating back the "experts" at the CDC and FDA. But there's no way any of that would have been done under a hypothetical Clinto regime either. By far the best thing he could have done is accelerated vaccine development by loosening testing requirements and moving quickly ahead with challenge trials. But again, it's the "experts" who are in the way there. The article argues from the assumption that the "expert" bureaucrats would have done better, without any mention of their very real failures or evaluation of what they were actually suggesting at the time.
The article cherry-picks countries with better stats and ignores the dumpster fire that is nearly every country in Western Europe.
The only kernel of truth in the article is that "strict quarantine and isolation" could have been effective at early stages. But they don't elaborate on exactly what that means, which is the police dragging everyone who has come in contact with an infected individual (and in contact with them too) to a centralized quarantine facility, and turning people back who try to cross state borders. Hard to imagine that being implemented in the U.S. and I haven't seen any politician advocate it. Given that, they should probably address the evidence on how effective weaker lockdown without centralized quarantine is, but they do not.
The part ranking countries based on "tests per infected person" is completely ridiculous. This is just another way of complaining we have lots of infections.
-
Honestly it’s a pretty good editorial.
It's a dishonest political screed. It wasn't Trump who stopped us from having large-scale testing early on, it was the author's colleagues working as professional bureaucrats at government agencies who established layers of red tape and kept insising they almost had a government-approved test ready. Trump didn't set the PPE reserves on fire, they were used up in Obama's 1st of 8 years in office and never replenished.
Wow, look at this orange koolaid drinker. He's blaming Obama for Orange's failures.