This claim has been made over and over again. Pelosi made it today talking to Chris Wallace (I think).
It has been made more times than I can count on this forum. Mostly that “Trump’s inaction in February cost lives!” Pretty much word for word what Pelosi said.
So my question is how, how many lives and what proof do you have?
I thought @conan thread on blame was interesting. The results basically “No, I don’t blame Trump for the virus, I blame him for allowing more people to die than was necessary!”
I find that difficult to understand. It seems the presumption is if we had done something sooner, it wouldn’t be as bad as it is.
Based on what? Did anybody die because they needed a ventilator and one wasn’t available "for example)? Was anybody turned away from a hospital? Denied access to a doctor? I certainly haven’t seen any credible evidence of it. So the hospital system was protected. Mission accomplished.
Do you really think you can control the spread of a respiratory virus in a city such as New York?
It was inevitable that it would make it’s way to the US. Once it reached here, it was inevitable that it would spread to the cities.
Once you are exposed, and you either have been or will be, there are a limited number of outcomes:
- You don’t get the disease.
- You get it but you are asymptomatic
- You get it and are symptomatic
- Symptomatic - Recover
- Symptomatic - Recover with medical intervention
- Symptomatic - Die
What about the timing of the response changes any of those outcomes?
You think you are going to “contact trace” 20.3 million people? Test them, then do what with them?
If they test positive but are asymptomatic, what do you do with them? How long?
And that’s just one area.
This claim seems to be based on the belief that somehow we can keep people from being exposed; I don’t think that is a realistic expectation in this country.
Now some will claim “XYZ country did it, we can too.” No. That is simply not true.
Once the risk is assumed, which we did by building this system, we have zero control over the outcome.
So I’d like to see some kind of real evidence that the casualty figures would have been any different with a different response - which by definition comes after the risk is tolerated.