|
|
|
|
|
by crooked-v
2146 days ago
|
|
There was an obvious optimal solution at the start of all of this, which is the same thing many other countries did: have a national lockdown for 1-2 months or so with everyone paid to stay home so that total number of new cases drops very low, then remove the lockdown and use comprehensive contact tracing and testing to quickly respond to new outbreaks. Instead the federal executive branch acted in a worse than useless manner by being actively counterproductive, while various state governors refused to do anything because acting sensibly contradicted their political beliefs. |
|
Aaand yet all the worst outbreaks early on were in the bluest parts of blue-or-purple states, and were under the control of Democrat mayors and governors. Who are also the ones with real authority, incidentally.
Now, the red parts of the map aren't exactly doing well right now either - but let's not pretend that only the Republicans fucked up on this one.
> have a national lockdown for 1-2 months or so with everyone paid to stay home so that total number of new cases drops very low, then remove the lockdown and use comprehensive contact tracing and testing to quickly respond to new outbreaks.
I honestly think that Trump could not have done this. If he had tried - which would have taken a large expansion of executive power - at a time that this would have helped, I wouldn't be surprised if he was impeached. You might remember what happened when Trump banned (a lot of) travel from China - it wasn't people saying that this was insufficient, it was people saying that it was racist and unconstitutional. Do you really think that a response a thousand times as intense would have gotten a positive response?