Donald Trump's illusions of superiority is damaging Americans who are captured in his cult

"...cognitive bias of illusory superiority comes from the inability of people (like Donald Trump) to recognize their lack of ability", the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Injecting Lysol - Donald Trump's scientific ignorance

An editorial summary about Trump's irrational stupidity published in The Week:

Donald Trump "has often claimed that he is exceptionally smart," said Matt Flegenheimer, in The New York Times, citing his genetic connection to a supposedly "super-genious" uncle who is a scientist. But, his musings last week about alternativ treatments for COVID-19, did not make Trump sound very smart. Rather, they created "near-universl public alarm".  

At one of his too-painful-to-watch coronavirus briefings, an excited Trump hailed reseach showing the coronairus' vulnerability to sunlight and household disinfectants. To the visible dicomformt of coronavirus adviser Dr. Deborah Birx (who should have stood up to Trump, but instead looked like the naughty lady sitting in the princibal's office) Trump wondered what would happen if "you brought the light inside th ebody...either through the skin or in some other way, " and if disinfectant could be used to clear the COVID-riddled lungs, "by injection inside, or almost a cleaning." 

When Donald Trump asked about injesting chemicals into the lungs to clean them out or shine heat into the body to kill the coronavirus, Dr. Deborah Birx was visibly uncomfortable. But, she sat properly, looking like the naughty lady waiting to spill the beans on a guilty student in the principals' office. She never called out Trump's stupidity! Shame on her!

Of all the "head-snappingly stupid things" Trump has said, this stands apart, said Paul Waldman, in The Washington Post. Yes, it follows weeks of him touting inthe hydroxycholoroquine, "like he was on an infomercial hwking 'male enhancement pills," nd months of Trum insisting that the virus would just go away, "like a miracle". But, the sheer madness of his bleach cure illustrates, "with particular vividenss not just who Trump is, but the damage he's doing to the country."

Moreover, after Trump speculated about ingesting toxic disinfectants as a treatment for coronavirus, the Kansas secretary of health reported that a man drank a cleaning product "because of the advice he received," and the state's Poison Control Center saw a 40 percent spike in cleaning-chemical exposure cases. 

In fact, the makers of Lysol and Clorox had to warn customers to not ingest their products.  Nonetheless, two men in Georgia drank cleaning products hoping to prevent COVID-19 infections and in Illinois, two people were reported to gargle with bleach mixted with mouthwash in attemps to killthe  coronavirus.  Maryland and New York also saw upticks in poison-control inqiries about cleaning products.  

Trump actually believes that he's smarter than scientists, said Jonah Goldbert, in TheDispatch.com.  Longing for an "easy fix" to a pandemic that threatens his re-election, Trump seized on the bleach-and-sunlight cure as a "brilliant idea that never occured to the fancy-pants experts."  Trump suffers from what is known as the Dunning-Kruger* effect, said Jonathan Chait in NYMag.com. 

This well-documented phenomenon describes how people with low ability are too incompetent to recognize their own incompetence. what shoud worry us most about Trump's embrace of quack cures isnt't that gullible people will try thm. It's that e's lfet no doubt that we're facing the greatest public-health crises in a century behind the leadershp of "an ignorant crank, who thinks he's a genius."

*In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people with low ability at a task overestimate their ability. It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory superiority and comes from the inability of people to recognize their lack of ability.

Protecting others to prevent the spread of the coronavirus must not be political

An echo opinion letter published in the Pioneer Press, a St. Paul, Minnesota newspaper. 

In these unprecedented times of the COVID-19 pandemic, face masks have been turned into fuel for political fire. Although the CDC currently recommends wearing face masks in public, the decision to wear a mask is often determined by an individual’s political alignment.

However, the decision to wear a face mask should be made upon our moral obligation to protect vulnerable members of our communities, regardless of political leanings. 

A person’s political ideologies do not negate their responsibility to protect those around them.

It is argued that requiring a face mask in public spaces infringes upon personal freedoms.

While people reserve the right to make choices that affect themselves, they do not have the right to make a choice that needlessly endangers others. Refusal to wear face masks allows greater transmission of viruses, jeopardizing the health of fellow citizens and Minnesotans.

Promoting public health should not be political. Please! Wear a mask, if you are able, in order to promote the health of our communities.  From Kendall Emfield, Tonka Bay, Minnesota

A historian grades Donald Trump's failed coronavirus pandemic leadership: Republican alert!

Pandemic data examined under a history lens:

Over 100,000 coroavirus deaths while Donald Trump played golf at his own club.

America's response to the coronavirus pandemic and especially the failed leadership exhibited by Donald Trump is incomprehensible! John M. Barry, 73, is a historian and author of several books, including "The Great Influenza: The Story of the Deadliest Pandemic in History," about the 1918 flu pandemic. He lives in New Orleans.

(MaineWriter- I have read and reported about Barry's excellent historic reporting about the 1918 influenza pandemic because my father-in-law was at Camp Devens in 1918, when the outbreak prevented his World War I Infantry Unit from deploying to fight in France.)

Interview with Barry published in the History News Network and the Washington Post: As you’ve watched the coronavirus pandemic unfold, what’s been going through your mind?

Barrry: Well, I mean, it’s predictable. In the middle of January you could see pretty much what was going to happen. Anybody who understood anything about virology and pandemics, you know, it was obvious. You did not need an intelligence briefing to figure it out.

How would you characterize the United States’s response to the pandemic?
In a local paper I gave Trump a 3.5 a couple of days ago, but I was being overly generous.

3.5 out of what?
Ten. The first few months it was hugely disappointing to see him trivialize this outbreak. A few weeks ago he suddenly took it seriously and said we were at war. That was important. Since then, he’s up and down. The positive is, he does seem to take it seriously. He still is telling people to keep apart, and that’s important. But obviously, he gives out inaccurate information on a daily basis. I was part of the groups that did preparedness planning for pandemics in the [George W.] Bush administration, and in those groups we discussed the importance of who the spokesperson should be. Because getting compliance from the public obviously is crucial if you’re going to get social distancing and compliance with your recommendations. And we were unanimous that it should not be any politician, not the president, not secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), not even the Center for Diseases Control and Prevention (CDC). But the reason was that any politician would start out with a significant chunk of the public not trusting him, not believing him.

Additionally, the following interview with Barry was published by the University of Minnesota's Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy:

When the coronavirus pandemic first began in this country, the president said it was no worse than seasonal flu. Did leaders in 1918 say anything similar during the first spring wave of that pandemic?
Yes. National public health leaders were saying things like, "This is an ordinary influenza by another name," and, "You have nothing to fear if proper precautions are taken."

We know the pandemic in 1918 was caused by an influenza virus, and a coronavirus is a different animal. But what are some similarities and differences in terms of the actual illnesses people experienced?
You know, it's not clear how many people died from ARDS [acute respiratory distress syndrome] in 1918 or bacterial pneumonia. Some say the vast, overwhelming majority of deaths in 1918 were due to bacterial pneumonia, but I don't share that view. There were very rapid deaths in a few days from symptom onset. That clearly wasn’t bacterial.

A difference is obvious in terms of spread. As your readers know, influenza has a shorter incubation period. The length of time COVID-19 takes to work its way into the body is considerably longer. The longer incubation period stretches everything out.

Influenza in 1918 to 1920 would burn through a community in 6 to 10 weeks, and then you forget about it. That's not going to be the case with this. Whether COVID-19 results in a flatter, more continuous line or undulates is not clear.

The 1918 pandemic started with a mild wave of illnesses in the spring, and then 6 months later a fall wave that was more deadly. How did cities respond to the different curves?

No city closed in the spring; that was a mild wave, it was very hit or miss and was really only recognized in retrospect, except in military camps. Even medical journal articles at the times said it looks and smells like influenza, but not enough people died [for it] to be influenza. The virulence was so different in the fall wave.

New York City didn't close anything at all, a decision that was highly political. Chicago didn't close schools or much of anything else, either.

Coincidentally, both Chicago and New York had more pronounced spring outbreaks—they were in the minority. But the spring outbreaks provided significant immune protection naturally.

What about other cities? How did they decide when to shut down?
There were no general lockdowns, the way we have today. Most cities closed saloons, theaters, places of public gathering, but no general closing. However, fear was pretty effective in keeping people home. There was tremendous absenteeism from work, whether out of fear or because workers were taking care of sick people.

The ship-building industry had good data. Workers were told they were important as soldiers, they had to work out of patriotism, and there was no sick leave. In addition, there was medical care available in the ship yards that was unavailable in civilian communities.

Even with those factors, they saw 40% to 60% absenteeism. My guess is the absenteeism was significantly higher in other industries.

Metropolitan Life concluded that more than 3% of all industrial workers died because of the flu, and remember how compressed the time frame was—6 to 10 weeks to pass through any community. So when 3.25% of entire population in a working age-group die in a matter of a few weeks, that's a pretty good reason not to go to work.

What about opening up? How did cities make that decision?

It was a back-of-the-envelope calculation by public health leaders, usually pressured by the business community. The question was whether the local public health commissioner was strong enough to stand up to pressure.

After a few weeks, all businesses were insistent on coming out. And there was no radio or TV or Internet, so most people weren't too thrilled with being at home, anyway.

As you watch the current pandemic, do you see any leaders, local or national, who are doing a good job? A bad job?

The governor of Georgia stands out as a liar or fool or both (Governor Brian Kemp). Probably 70% of citizens know that COVID-19 transmits when you're asymptomatic. The governor of Florida also stands out on the downside (Governor Ron DeSantis).
Governor Andrew Cuomo in New York certainly stands out in a good way in terms of communication. John Bel Edwards, here in Louisiana, has done a good job.

Speaking of Louisiana, New Orleans was one of the first cities in the current pandemic to sound the alarm that black Americans were dying more than whites. What sort of disparities were seen in the 1918 flu?
There were epidemiological studies at the time that showed the amount of space that people had was a factor in how many people died in a family—the poorer you are the more crowded you are. Clearly, there was a socioeconomic factor related directly to living space.

Each day, it seems, governors extend stay-at-home mandates. As a historian who has studied people in past pandemics, how long do you think can people maintain this?
As a historian, I don't like to predict. You have to wait and see what the data is. There's been better compliance with social distancing than I expected, and perhaps more compliance then some of the models expected.

On the other hand, certain pockets of people are paying no attention at all. Again, we wait and see what the data says.

(Maine Writer- what the data says and also how history will report the failed Trump leadership response!)

Donald Trump is looking for support in his own lies - "Love in all the wrong places"

Trump Has Reached the Lying-to-Himself-and-Believing-It Stage of the Coronavirus Pandemic 

Johnny Lee lyrics: "Playin' a fools game hopin' to win; and tellin' those sweet lies and losin' again. I was lookin' for love in all the wrong places, Lookin' for love in too many faces,

searchin' their eyes and lookin' for traces of what I'm dreamin' of."

An Echo essay published in The New Yorker by Susan B. Glasser

The reality—in both public-health and crass political terms—doesn’t look good for Donald Trump.

On Tuesday afternoon, Gretchen Whitmer, the governor of Michigan, came on the line with a breaking-news bulletin. Just before our interview, Whitmer had heard that President Trump was talking about dismantling the coronavirus task force he had assembled to oversee the national response to the pandemic. Whitmer seemed stunned by this information—U.S. infections from covid-19 were well over a million, the daily national death toll was often more than two thousand, and, in Whitmer’s hard-hit state, the crisis had already claimed more than four thousand of her constituents’ lives. “It’s just shocking,” she said, as we both tried to absorb the news. “Something new happens every day.”

By the next morning, Trump had, once again, changed his mind. He told reporters that he had no idea how “popular” the coronavirus task force was, and that it would remain in operation while shifting its emphasis toward reopening the economy and away from a public-health catastrophe that has already caused more U.S. deaths than the wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq combined. These are crazy times in American politics. What’s a governor, or anyone trying to make sense of Trump’s on-again, off-again war on the virus, supposed to say?

Whitmer, a first-term Democrat in a swing state that helped Trump win the Presidency in 2016, has become such a lightning rod for Trump and his supporters that the President has given Whitmer her own derogatory Twitter nickname. After long-gun-toting protesters opposing her stay-at-home order entered the Michigan capitol last week—some of them wearing Trump campaign regalia, and some carrying Confederate flags, nooses, and swastikas—the President praised them as “very good people.” As Democrats nationally celebrate Whitmer’s unyielding response, and as Joe Biden considers her as his running mate, both the Republican-controlled state legislature and a Republican member of Congress have now sued her for using her emergency powers to keep the state closed during the crisis. Meanwhile, in heavily Democratic, heavily African-American Detroit, health-care workers are struggling to contain one of the worst outbreaks in the country.

Public polls show that the vast majority of Michiganders support social-distancing measures to combat the pandemic (as is true nationwide), and also Whitmer’s handling of the situation. In a state that Trump needs to win this fall, his approval ratings have dropped, while Whitmer’s have risen. Whitmer told me that Trump’s hyper-partisan approach did not make sense in terms of either public health or crass politics. “The enemy is a virus, and it doesn’t care what party you’re in, it doesn’t care what state you’re in,” she said. (You can hear our full interview on The New Yorker Radio Hour.) Trump, however, has not only persisted in his critiques of “that woman from Michigan” but nationalized his combative approach, with one policy for “Democrat states,” as he recently called them, that are the worst-affected by the virus, and another for Republican ones.

A fleeting image, captured on C-span inside the U.S. Capitol this week, highlighted the divisive absurdity of the moment: Mitt Romney, wearing a mask, walked out of the Senate Republican Conference weekly lunch meeting toting a large placard with a graph on it. “Blue states aren’t the only ones who are screwed,” the headline on the placard read. Romney, though, is a minority of one. The lone Republican in either the House or Senate to support convicting Trump in his recent impeachment trial, Romney, who was the Republican Presidential nominee in 2012, is now an outlier in a Party with a devotion to Trump so strong that it has not faltered even in the face of the President’s reality-defying response to the pandemic.

Romney’s pitch, in fact, appeared to be so unpersuasive that, by Wednesday evening, Politico reported that “Senate Republicans are settling on their pandemic message as they fight to save their majority: President Donald Trump did a tremendous job.” This, not at all coincidentally, is the theme of a new ad being run nationwide by the Trump campaign, in which the President is portrayed as a heroic leader who defied Democrats and media pundits, shut off the country from the “Chinese virus,” and will lead America’s cratering economy to recovery. In case the message is too subtle, the ad spells it out in big all-capital letters on the screen: “the greatest comeback story.”

Then I went to college, we used to joke during exam period that you were really in trouble when you started to lie to yourself and believe it. The President and at least some of his most fervent supporters appear now to be in the lying-to-yourself-and-believing-it stage of the pandemic. Truth has become so inconvenient that it’s better left aside for some alternate, less inconvenient reality. This is, of course, not the first time in the Trump Presidency, or even the first time during this pandemic, that there has been such a gap, but it appears to be a moment when there is a widening and very likely unsustainable gulf between Trumpian truth and what is actually happening.

That’s because the numbers are the numbers and, for Trump and for America, they look terrible. On Wednesday, there were some twenty-six hundred deaths in the United States from covid-19, and, on Thursday, there were even more: around twenty-seven hundred. Leaked predictions from government scientists show an increase, by June 1st, to three thousand deaths, on average, every twenty-four hours. As Whitmer noted to me, that amounts to essentially a 9/11’s worth of victims per day. Even after some seventy-five thousand deaths and a couple months of social-distancing public-health measures, the charts demonstrate clearly that the national curve has not flattened, with sharp declines registered only in New York and New Jersey—which have already gone through the country’s worst ordeal—and a handful of other states. More than half the states have at least partially lifted strict stay-at-home orders, although none of the states that announced reopenings—not one—met the criteria established by the Trump Administration for doing so. At the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention this week, a detailed, seventeen-page guide for how to return safely to workplaces and schools was quashed by the White House, and its authors were told it would “never see the light of day,” the Associated Press reported on Thursday. Testing capability is nowhere near the millions of additional tests needed to resume regular daily life, according to experts, nor is there widespread capacity to conduct contact tracing, another prerequisite.

Yet many states are reopening anyway, and Trump is not, at least for now, even bothering to hide the fact that more Americans may die as a result of these decisions. On Tuesday, he flew to a mask factory in Arizona for a photo op, where he appeared not wearing a mask, as the Guns N’ Roses version of the song “Live and Let Die” blasted over the factory’s loudspeakers. In an interview taped at the factory, Trump said, “I’m viewing our great citizens of this country to a certain extent, and to a large extent, as warriors. They’re warriors. We can’t keep our country closed. We have to open our country. Will some people be badly affected? Yes.” On Wednesday, he elaborated as to what he meant by “badly affected.” Asked if more Americans might die as a result of reopening too soon, he said, “Hopefully that won’t be the case.” But, he added, “It could very well be the case.” He also argued against more testing. “In a way, by doing all this testing, we make ourselves look bad,” he said. On Thursday, it was reported that, even as Trump was saying this, one of his personal valets, who delivers his meals, had tested positive for the virus. In response, Trump said he would now be tested every day. Reality, it turns out, is not just a matter of political optics.

In the past, when Trump has got too far away from what is actually happening and into his personal hall of mirrors, the press of events has forced him to abandon his position. He is adept enough at self-survival to make wild course corrections where necessary.

This is a man, after all, who said in late February that coronavirus cases would soon be down to zero and, just two weeks later, declared a national emergency and vowed to wage war on the deadly “invisible enemy.”

I’ve seen many possible explanations for Trump’s bizarre, reality-defying behavior in recent days.

• He’s bored.
• He’s clueless.
• He’s panicking about his reëlection.
• He doesn’t care about anything other than the stock market.
• He’d rather talk about his border wall or vanquishing the “deep state.”

All of them might be correct.

It’s also possible that Trump really is the greatest of all time at something: believing his own hype. On Sunday, he stared right into a Fox News camera and declared that he had been treated worse than Abraham Lincoln—while speaking at the national memorial to the slain President. Either Trump is the most brazen politician in the long line of brazen American politicians or he somehow had been brainwashed by his own B.S.

Still, Trump appears to me to be increasingly terrified at the very real prospect of losing in November, as both national polls and surveys in battleground states currently show him doing. Overnight Monday and again on Tuesday, he let loose about an ad being run against him by a group of Never Trump Republicans called the Lincoln Project. The ad, “Mourning in America,” shows haunting scenes of a devastated country, “weaker and sicker and poorer” after four years under Trump’s leadership. The President responded by calling the group “the losers project” and railing about its founders, among them George Conway, the Trump-bashing husband of the White House counsellor Kellyanne Conway. This did not exactly seem like a confident performance by the most powerful man on the planet. It seemed like the scared rant of someone who knows that, eventually, he might finally be called on his most bullshit of performances.

Even Corey Lewandowski—Trump’s 2016 campaign manager and as blustery a loyalist to Trump as exists—is now publicly acknowledging that Trump has set an extraordinarily risky political course in declaring victory over a still-raging pandemic. “It’s a huge gamble,” Lewandowski said in an interview, released on Thursday, with Christian Broadcasting Network’s David Brody. He added, “If there is a resurgence . . . not just in the next four weeks or six weeks, but as the weather turns again, if, come the fall in September, in October, we see an uptick again in the covid-19 pandemic coming back because we didn’t handle it right the first time—we still don’t have testing and we don’t have a solution—that is devastating as an incumbent President of the United States.”

(Maine Writer- As a matter of fact, Lewandowski's home state of New Hampshire is seeing an increase in coronavirus morbidity and mortality.)

More than three decades ago, in his as-told-to memoir, “The Art of the Deal,” Trump bragged about the sheer, addictive effectiveness of lying—he called it “hyperbole”—in service of his goals. Yet he also acknowledged, “You can’t con people, at least not for long. You can create excitement, you can do wonderful promotion and get all kinds of press, and you can throw in a little hyperbole. But if you don’t deliver the goods, people will eventually catch on.”

On November 3rd, we’ll find out if they did. For now, the scary prospect is sure to keep Trump up for many more nights to come, hate-tweeting in the dark.

Donald Trump must learn American history: #TrumpHasNoPlan during the coronavirus

This opinion echo letter was published in The Tribune Democrat, a newspaper published in Johnstown, Pennsylvania: 

Donald Trump’s claim that a vaccine to prevent the COVID-19 infections before the end of 2020, will be big and fast like the "Manhattan Project". But, hisambitious statement is just another example to demonstrate Trump's lack of knowledge about American history.

f I were a betting woman, I would wager that Trum has no clue what the Manhattan Project entailed. Yes, it was big, but it wasn’t fast. From inception (1939) when discussions and theorizing got underway, to completion July 16, 1945, the planning took six years. It seemed an eternity to American leaders who feared the Germans were ahead in building a weapon using nuclear technology.

In January 2017, en route to Asia, Trump stopped in Hawaii. He was given a private tour of Pearl Harbor. By all accounts, he had a vague idea of some battle there and asked his then-Chief of Staff John Kelly why they were visiting this place.

The above are just two of the multiple accounts showing Trump's ignorance about American history. This is not surprising given his aversion to books and inability to read.

Barack Obama, Trump’s bete noire, had a full grasp of American history including the contents of the Constitution. He also spoke in complete sentences, and had a rich vocabulary that never included four letter expletives.

Because Trump ignored the warnings of his own intel and scientists in January, we are “America First” in the number of COVID-19 cases and deaths.

Is it any wonder that the rest of the world pities us?

Rose Hess in Bowling Green, Ohio, formerly of Jerome, Pennsylvania

Donald Trump's magnetic attraction to Vladimir Putin is generated by greed and racism

1 Russian Ruble = 0.0141345USD

Maine Writer - Obviously I am not an economist, but it's obvious that the Russian economy is in collapse.  Just check the value of a Russian Ruble if converted to US currency.  In fact, the Russian Ruble is junk.  In this Chris Roberts essay, the case is made that Trump's obsession with Vladimir Putin is rooted in the potential for investmet opportunities in Moscow, where political demographics are in line with his own myopic, limited vision of the world according to him, rather than in driven by kompromat theories.  

An echo opinion published in the New York Observer: 

The Very Conspicuous, 760-Mile-Long Hole in the Trump-Russia Conspiracy

https://observer.com/2019/05/trump-russia-conspiracy-nord-stream-2-pipeline/

By Chris Roberts (An interesting point of view under a political economic lens.)

Russia, John McCain once said, is a gas station masquerading as a country. Rude, and false. Gas stations don’t have nuclear weapons, nor are they trying to conquer any nearby convenience stores. Petroleum products account for 59 percent of Russia’s exports, meaning Vladimir Putin is in charge of a one-note economy almost as addicted to fossil fuel as Saudi Arabia.

How reliant Russia is on the flow of oil and gas to Europe was made painfully obvious last month when officials in nearby Belarus noticed that oil tainted with organic chlorides, a contaminant often used to coax the last drops out of exhausted wells that can cause serious problems at refineries, was flowing through the Druzhba pipeline. Delivery of up to 1.4 million barrels of oil a day to customers in eastern and central Europe was halted. Russia was out $500 million a day in lost revenue. Rather than cop to delivering bad product—which would be very bad for long-term business prospects and could mean Russian wells have gone bad—Russian officials are claiming sabotage.

Keep in mind that even when the Druzhba is running clean, Russia’s economy is barely slogging along, a wheezing bear badly in need of a break. The country’s GDP shrank between 2014 and 2017 thanks to erratic oil prices and U.S. sanctions imposed after Putin’s 2014 annexation of Crimea.

If someone wanted to hit Russia where it hurt, they would mess with oil and gas exports. Which is exactly what Donald Trump and the supposed puppet of Vladimir Putin has spent most of the last year doing.

This week, it was announced that a bipartisan group of U.S. senators are working on more sanctions that would apply to companies working on the pipeline and their executives. There isn’t much agreement between Donald Trump and Democrats in Congress, but they agree that Nord Stream 2 is bad news.

Large pipes for the Baltic Sea pipeline Nord Stream 2 sit in a storage area at the Sassnitz Ferry Port.

Nord Stream 2 sit in a storage area at the Sassnitz Ferry Port. Ulrich Baumgarten via Getty Images

How does any of this square with the Russiagate conspiracy that’s dominated Rachel Maddow broadcasts and #Resistance Twitter feeds for most of the past two years? It doesn’t. 

Nord Stream 2 is an enormous and unexplained hole in the otherwise neat theory that relieves the U.S. of the psychic weight of electing a mumbling xenophobic leader. If Trump was on Putin’s payroll, or Russia had dirt on him, or something, or whatever, why would Trump be gleefully costing Russia money it doesn’t have?

It is true that Trump dislikes Angela Merkel, a woman leader, and so it could be that his big dumb boy act is there just to cause her trouble. But Russia really needs the German’s money. They may actually need the money from selling gas to Germany more than Germany needs the gas, according to Michael McFaul, the former U.S. ambassador to Russia. McFaul, remember, is the same guy that Putin half-jokingly asked Trump to turn over to Russia for questioning.

According to an analysis by one of McFaul’s colleagues at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, Trump and Merkel tussling over Nord Stream 2 does help Putin because it weakens the sinews of the 70-year-old NATO alliance—the military bloc still staring Putin down and the likeliest opposition force to someday, maybe, enter Ukraine and put a stop to his revanchist project there.

And if Germany does cave and agrees to stop shopping Russian, the likeliest alternative is liquefied natural gas shipped from the gas-abundant United States. So, this theory goes, any influence Putin has over Trump is outweighed by DT45’s desire to boost the American fossil fuel sector.

Dedicated game theorists might tell you that all this noise—and attention on the real cost to Russia, which has to pay Ukraine transmission fees to use a pipeline there, as long as Nord Stream 2 isn’t open—is just an elaborate ploy to distract you from what’s really going on.

The counterfactuals here are clear, they are not new, and they need addressing if this isn’t to be dismissed as time wasting. If Trump is in Putin’s pocket, why has the Trump administration expanded the ruinous Obama-era sanctions? Why is Trump continuing to make things worse for Putin, with whom he absolutely enjoys a very bizarre relationship? It makes no sense. It is something no Russiagate true believer can satisfactorily explain.

Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump are both relatively straightforward dudes. They demand and reward loyalty, they are sensitive control freaks.

Putin, the frustrated former mid-career spy who segued into a career in ruthless kleptocratic politics, likes expensive sweatsuits and hates risk. Cobbling together a pact with Trump, a half-sentient egomaniac with no self control, is not a low-risk endeavor.

Trump likely legitimately admires Putin for the simplest of reasons: Trump, a serial bullshitter who hates rules, likes tough guys who don’t take any shit and don’t bother with niceties. Putin is all that, and he’s also president of a country that happens to be filled with Slavic women, Donald Trump’s type.

To explain the tower project in Moscow that Trump coveted with a convoluted conspiracy, you have to somehow rule out the simplest reasons, which are: There is money to be made in Moscow, a relatively clean and orderly and mostly white place filled with slick billionaires and beautiful, high-maintenance women. Moscow is a cleaner and whiter Las Vegas. Moscow is a Donald Trump fantasy. Erase the last three years of history, or rewrite it so Trump loses on Election Night, and the Moscow dream still makes perfect sense.

Laid out like this, Russia in Trump’s eyes emerges as a very attractive investment opportunity. 

“But aha!” you say. “Why did Vladimir Putin want Donald Trump elected?” This, too, can be explained in simple and personal terms. Putin hates Hillary Clinton. Putin knew electing Trump would create mischief and disrupt American power, thus creating opportunity through chaos.

All of this can be true without there being a real pee tape, or collusion, or Russian spies in Trump’s Cabinet. Like his one-track father, Donald Trump Jr. was probably simple-minded enough to not really care where dirt on Hillary Clinton came from.

It may yet emerge that Russia has some undue influence on Trump, a simple grifter who has floated through life on his father’s money. That is not the simple explanation, and thus the unlikeliest. Meanwhile, Donald Trump is very gleefully and very seriously threatening the vitality of the Russian economy—and, with it, the stability of the Russian state. This is not something puppets generally do.
Filed Under: Politics, International Politics, National Politics, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, John McCain, Vladimir Putin, Robert Mueller, Trump Russia Investigation, Rachel Maddow

Leadership matters and Donald Trump failed - he was handed an opportunity but created chaos

How leadership in various countries has affected COVID-19 response effectiveness published in The Conversaion.  

Reported by Christine Crudo Blackburn, Deputy Director, Pandemic & Biosecurity Policy Program, Scowcroft Institute of International Affairs, Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M University and Leslie Ruyle, Associate Research Scientist and Assistant Director Scowcroft Institute of International Affairs, Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M University

COVID-19 has put political leaders and health care systems worldwide to the test. Although lockdowns are the common approach, some countries have opted for less stringent measures.

As scientists and public policy experts, we have spent years analyzing how countries prepare and respond to pandemics. We believe this is certain: The policy and communication choices that national leaders make has a measurable impact on the effectiveness of pandemic response.

Some countries respond with science

Prime Minister of New Zealand is getting attention for all the right reasons. At age 39, Jacinda Ardern is the youngest prime minister of the island nation and one of the youngest female world leaders. With the coronavirus pandemic crippling the world, Ardern has earned accolades for her smooth, swift, and smart take on flattening the curve in New Zealand and her unapologetic approach to leadership

In particular, Germany and New Zealand have handled the crisis effectively. Both countries have not wavered from a science-based approach and strong, centralized messaging.

Germany discovered its first cases on Jan. 27. At the time, the country’s health minister considered COVID-19 a low threat; still, Charité University Hospital in Berlin began developing a test. Within a month, new test kits were available – and Germany’s labs had already stocked up.

By mid-March, the country had closed schools and retail businesses. Testing was swiftly rolled out, and within approximately two weeks, Germany was processing more than 100,000 tests per week. Around this same time period, the United States had tested approximately 5,000 people and did not reach numbers similar to Germany until several weeks later. Chancellor Angela Merkel led Germany’s coordinated response, which included social distancing policies along with the early and wide-scale testing.

Not everything went smoothly. In many instances, lower-level health services still had autonomy; this led to a degree of discontinuity in policy implementation across states. Yet most Germans voluntarily adhered to the policies set forth by the national government. Now Germany is moving to lift restrictions.

New Zealand, led by Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, responded with a slogan: “We must go hard and we must go early.” In mid-February, travelers from China were banned.

On March 23 – a month after its first case – New Zealand committed to a total elimination strategy and implemented a strict national lockdown despite having only 102 COVID-19 cases and no recorded deaths. Schools were closed. So were nonessential businesses. Social gatherings were banned. A 14-day self-isolation period was required for anyone entering the country, with a few Pacific Island exceptions.

With a population of just under 5 million, New Zealand has already tested more than 175,000 potentially infected people – approximately 4% of its population. It is now expanding the program.

Like Germany, the country has emphasized science, leadership and consistent messaging. Prime Minister Ardern builds public trust through regular appearances on social media, including posts aimed at children. As of May 9, the country had fewer than 1,500 confirmed cases and 20 deaths from COVID-19.

Instead of hand-washing, a hands-off approach

Brazil and Nicaragua have taken a decidedly different approach. Leaders of both countries have adopted a “hands-off” policy – in some cases, even discouraging citizens from following public health measures taken in other countries.

On Feb. 25, Brazil recorded its first case. Since then, the country has reported more than 300,000 cases and 20,000 deaths – the third largest outbreak in the world, behind only the U.S. and Russia.

Over these months, President Jair Bolsonaro has said the virus is not a threat, calling it a “little flu.” He has also encouraged defiance of social distancing measures put in place by governors.

Brazil has many advantages over its neighbors for an effective pandemic response: universal health coverage, a large community-based primary care delivery system, and experience responding to the Zika health crisis in 2015.

But the lack of leadership from Bolsonaro have led some to label him as the “biggest threat” to the country’s ability to fight the SARS-CoV-2. His continued attacks on scientists, universities and experts, along with the lack of organized federal response, have disrupted efforts to control the pandemic. An Imperial College of London study showed Brazil with the highest rate of transmission of the 48 countries examined.

Nicaragua has also failed to acknowledge the dangers of this virus. President Daniel Ortega, an authoritarian leader who has remained in office despite term limits and sustained popular protests demanding his resignation, is resisting travel restrictions while encouraging schools and businesses to stay open. He discourages the use of masks, even by health care workers.

With his wife and vice president, Rosario Murillo, Ortega has suggested that citizens attend church and go to the beach; they even organized a huge parade called “Love Against COVID-19” on March 14. The ruling couple, however, are noticeably absent for many of these activities, at which social distancing is impossible.

In a country of more than 6 million, Nicaragua reported 25 confirmed cases and eight deaths from COVID-19 as of May 15. But many experts suspect the true number of infections is much higher, both because of minimal testing – the government only allows 50 tests per day – and because many COVID-19 deaths are classified as “pneumonia.” Since January 2020, pneumonia deaths in Nicaragua have reportedly been increasing. But there is little government transparency in Nicaragua, so the data is difficult to confirm.

Lessons for the US

Reliance on science and centralized messaging help countries move faster to safely lift restrictions. Confusing and mixed messages, coupled with distrust of scientific experts, lets the virus spread. In the U.S., messaging is confusing and decentralized and defers to state governments for the majority of policy development. This decentralization has led to vastly different actions by governors. Georgia and Texas reopened as cases continued to increase, while Washington and Oregon extend lockdowns well into the summer.

A coordinated, science-driven, national-level strategy is vital to an effective response. But at the moment, the U.S. federal government has communicated more like Brazil and Nicaragua, rather than Germany and New Zealand. The examples we highlight here are a warning to all of us.

Zoom in on history - Green-Wood cemetery and the pandemic

"Green-Wood is a sacred, tranquil and welcoming respite from the turmoil swirling all around us. And with your help and cooperation, we can keep it that way. See you on the grounds!," Richard J. Moylan.

Echo opinion:  How National Historic Landmark Green-Wood can serve as an oasis in current New York City crisis by Richard J. Moylan, President of The Green-Wood Cemetery and published in the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper.

At no time in recent history has New York City faced a crisis of the proportion that COVID-19 has presented. 

Cemeteries, including the historic Green-Wood, are nearing the breaking point. The sheer number of deaths we deal with every day has physically and emotionally overwhelmed the dedicated staff who work around the clock to ensure that every family affected by a COVID-19 death is treated with the utmost respect and dignity in their time of deep sorrow.

Yet, even as I look out my window and see the grieving mourners, I am also reminded that Green-Wood is a very special place — one that offers a quiet oasis where everyone is welcomed to find peace amidst the uncertainty and fear of the day.

A little more than a month ago, we decided to open all four of our entrances until 7:00 p.m. every day of the week. Thousands of you came to visit. We’ve been delighted to welcome you. But, when you come to visit us, please remember that, first and foremost, Green-Wood is an active cemetery. Our families are here, every day, to visit the graves of their loved ones.

Green-Wood is not a public park. It is not a place of recreation. There is no jogging allowed. No bike riding. No dog walking. No picnicking. No sunbathing. No tree climbing. Children must be under a guardian’s supervision at all times. Our rules are clear on what is allowed and what is not. Rule breaking may force us to close our gates completely.

Green-Wood cemetery was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1997, and was made a National Historic Landmark in 2006. In addition, the 25th Street gates, the Weir Greenhouse, and the Fort Hamilton Parkway Gate & Green-Wood Cemetery Chapel were separately designated as city landmarks by the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission at various times.

We are very fortunate to have an army of Green-Wood Ambassadors — many of whom have volunteered since the pandemic began. These are people who deeply care about this National Historic Landmark and who are on hand to make sure that our visitors are respectful and abide by the rules and critical social distancing protocols. If you would like to join the group, please click here.

I need to ask you one more favor. Traditionally, Mother’s Day is the single busiest day for family visitation at Green-Wood. It is a sad day for many of our lot owners, including me, who come to pay tribute to their mothers and grandmothers. They should be allowed to pay their respects in peace and solitude.

So, we are asking that members of the general public NOT visit on Mother’s Day, Sunday, May 10th. Stop by on Saturday, May 9th — or any weekday instead — to explore our 478 acres and discover our extraordinary natural landscape, historic monuments, and stunning architecture, and to learn about our permanent residents who helped make this city and nation great.

Even if you’re not able to stop by, you can visit Green-Wood from the comfort of your home. We have recently unveiled “Zooming in on History,” an exciting slate of new virtual tours that recreate some of Green-Wood’s most popular and interesting trolley tours. The tours offer up- close and in-depth looks at some of Green-Wood’s history and permanent residents.

The next on tap is “Carve it in Stone” — a virtual tour of the spectacular memorials created by Karin Sprague and Tracy Mahaffey with mallet and chisel, across Green-Wood’s grounds. The Zoom program takes place on May 13th, 5:00 p.m. Green-Wood also invites you to join our Director of Public Programs and Special Projects Harry J. Weil every Tuesday and Thursday on Instagram and Facebook for “Green-Wood from Home” — short and entertaining videos that explore some of Green-Wood’s great monuments and the stories behind them. Tens of thousands of you have already enjoyed these video excursions!

Green-Wood is a sacred, tranquil and welcoming respite from the turmoil swirling all around us. And with your help and cooperation, we can keep it that way. See you on the grounds!

See photography by Tom Hilton, who recently focused his camera lens on the spring blooms at Green-Wood.

Hydroxychloroquine is useless as a treatment for coronavirus: "Let the science speak for itself"

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/07/hydroxychloroquine-fails-to-help-hospitalized-coronavirus-patients-in-us-government-funded-study.html

Hydroxychloroquine fails to help hospitalized coronavirus patients in US funded study

Echo research article published in Medscape:

More Evidence to squash Hydroxychloroquine. The drug is ineffective and harmful in COVID-19.
By Batya Swift Yasgur MA, LSW

Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, with or without azithromycin or clarithromycin, offer no benefit in treating patients with COVID and, instead, are associated with ventricular arrhythmias and higher rates of mortality, according to a major new international study.

In the largest observational study of its kind, including close to 100,000 people in 671 hospitals on six continents, investigators compared outcomes in 15,000 patients with COVID-19 treated with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine alone or in combination with a macrolide with 80,000 control patients with COVID-19 not receiving these agents.

Treatment with any of these medications, either alone or in combination, was associated with increased death during hospitalization: compared with about 10% in control group patients, mortality rates ranged from more than 16% to almost 24% in the treated groups.
Patients treated with hydroxychloroquine plus a macrolide showed the highest rates of serious cardiac arrhythmias, and, even after accounting for demographic factors and comorbidities, this combination was found to be associated with a more than 5-fold increase in the risk of developing a serious arrhythmia while in the hospital.

"In this real-world study, the biggest yet, we looked at 100,000 patients [with COVID-19] across 6 continents and found not the slightest hint of benefits and only risks, and the data is pretty straightforward," study coauthor Frank Ruschitzka, MD, director of the Heart Center at University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

The study was published online May 22 in The Lancet.
'Inconclusive' Evidence

The absence of an effective treatment for COVID-19 has led to the "repurposing" of the antimalarial drug chloroquine and its analogue hydroxychloroquine, which is used for treating autoimmune disease, but this approach is based on anecdotal evidence or open-label randomized trials that have been "largely inconclusive," the authors write.

'Inconclusive' Evidence

The absence of an effective treatment for COVID-19 has led to the "repurposing" of the antimalarial drug chloroquine and its analogue hydroxychloroquine, which is used for treating autoimmune disease, but this approach is based on anecdotal evidence or open-label randomized trials that have been "largely inconclusive," the authors write.

Additional agents used to treat COVID-19 are second-generation macrolides (azithromycin or clarithromycin), in combination with chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine, "despite limited evidence" and the risk for ventricular arrhythmias, the authors note.

"Our primary question was whether there was any associated benefits of the use of hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, or a combined regimen with macrolides in treating COVID-19, and — if there was no benefit — would there be harm?" lead author Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, MSc, William Harvey Distinguished Chair in Advanced Cardiovascular Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

The investigators used data from a multinational registry comprising 671 hospitals that included patients (n = 96,032, mean age 53.8 years, 46.3% female) who had been hospitalized between December 20, 2019, and April 14, 2020, with confirmed COVID-19 infection.

Demographics collected included underlying comorbidities, and medical history, and medications that patients were taking at baseline.

Patients receiving treatment (n = 14,888) were divided into four groups: those receiving chloroquine alone (n = 1868), those receiving chloroquine with a macrolide (n = 3783), those receiving hydroxychloroquine alone (n = 3016) and those receiving hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide (n = 6221).

The remaining patients not treated with these regimens (n = 81,144) were regarded as the control group.

Most patients (65.9%) came from North America, followed by Europe (17.39%), Asia (7.9%), Africa (4.6%), South America (3.7%), and Australia (0.6%). Most (66.9%) were white, followed by patients of Asian origin (14.1%), black patients (9.4%), and Hispanic patients (6.2%).

Comorbidities and underlying conditions included obesity, hyperlipidemia, and hypertension in about 30%.

The investigators conducted multiple analyses to control for confounding variables, including Cox proportional hazards regression and propensity score matching analyses.

"In an observational study, there is always a chance of residual confounding, which is why we did propensity score based matched analyses," Ruschitzka explained.

No significant differences were found in distribution of demographics and comorbidities between the groups.

As Good as It Gets

"We found no benefit in any of the 4 treatment regimens for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 but we did notice higher rates of death and serious ventricular arrhythmias in these patients, compared to the controls,” Mehra reported.

Of the patients in the control group, roughly 9.3% died during their hospitalization compared with 16.4% of patients treated with chloroquine alone, 18.0% of those treated with hydroxychloroquine alone, 22.2% of those treated with chloroquine and a macrolide, and 23.8% of those treated with hydroxychloroquine and a macrolide.

After accounting for confounding variables, the researchers estimated that the excess mortality risk attributable to use of the drug regimen ranged from 34% to 45%.

Patients treated with any of the four regimens sustained more serious arrhythmias compared with those in the control group (0.35), with the biggest increase seen in the group treated with the combination of hydroxychloroquine plus a macrolide (8.1%), followed by chloroquine with a macrolide (6.5%), hydroxychloroquine alone (6.1%), and chloroquine alone (4.3%).

"We were fairly reassured that, although the study was observational, the signals were robust and consistent across all regions of the world in diverse populations, and we did not see any muting of that signal, depending on region," Mehra commented.

"Two months ago, we were all scratching our heads about how to treat patients with COVID-19, and then came a drug [hydroxychloroquine] with some anecdotal evidence but now we have 2 months more experience, and we looked to science to provide some answer," Ruschitzka said.

"Although this was not a randomized controlled trial, so we do not have a definite answer, the data provided in this [large, multinational] real-world study is as good as it gets and the best data we have," he concluded.

"Let the Science Speak for Itself"

Commenting on the study for theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology, Christian Funck-Brentano, MD, from the Hospital Pitie-Salpetriere and Sorbonne University in Paris, France, said that although the study is observational and therefore not as reliable as a randomized controlled trial, it is "nevertheless well-documented, studied a huge amount of people, and utilized several sensitivity methods, all of which showed the same results."

Funck-Brentano, who is the coauthor of an accompanying editorial and was not involved with the study, said that "we now have no evidence that hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine alone or in combination with a macrolide do any good and we have potential evidence that they do harm and kill people."

Also commenting on the study for theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology, David Holtgrave, PhD, dean of the University at Albany School of Public Health said that, "while no one observational study alone would lead to a firm clinical recommendation, I think it is helpful for physicians and public health officials to be aware of the findings of the peer-reviewed observational studies to date and the NIH COVID-19 treatment guidelines and FDA statement of drug safety concern about hydroxychloroquine to inform their decision-making as we await the results of randomized clinical trials of these drugs for the treatment of COVID-19," said Holtgrave, who was not involved with the study.

He added that, to his knowledge, there are "still no published studies of prophylactic use of these drugs to prevent COVID-19."

Mehra emphasized that a cardinal principle of practicing medicine is "first do no harm" and "even in situations where you believe a desperate disease calls for desperate measures, responsible physicians should take a step back and ask if we are doing harm, and until we can say we aren't, I don’t think it's wise to push something like this in the absence of good efficacy data."

Ruschitzka added that those who are encouraging use of these agents "should review their decision based on today's data and let the science speak for itself."

The study was supported by the William Harvey, Distinguished Chair in Advanced Cardiovascular Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital (Boston, MA, USA). Mehra reports personal fees from Abbott, Medtronic, Janssen, Mesoblast, Portola, Bayer, Baim Institute for Clinical Research, NuPulseCV, FineHeart, Leviticus, Roivant, and Triple Gene. Ruschitzka has been paid for time spent as a committee member for clinical trials, advisory boards, other forms of consulting, and lectures or presentations; these payments were made directly to the University of Zurich and no personal payments were received in relation to these trials or other activities. Funck-Brentano, his coauthor, and Holtgrave have declared no relevant financial relationships.

Lancet. Published online May 22, 2020.

Donald Trump has an ethical responsibility to hire competent oversight

Maine Writer- in my opinion, instead of draining the swamp, Donald Trump is feeding its polluted political environment by firing anyone who has authority to enforce government oversight.  #SIASD

Echo opinion by David C. Williams* published in The Washington Post and The Eagle, a newspaper circulated in Bryan, Texas

Donald Trump's spate of inspector general removals this spring is alarming, and every American should be concerned about the state of federal government oversight. 

But the problem with Trump's actions is not simply removing the watchdogs - it's also the chilling effect left on those who remain and the fact that the president is replacing some of the ousted officials with thinly credentialed political loyalists.

Inspectors general were established to conduct independent, dogged investigations into federal government agencies and report their findings freely to Congress and the public. Yet at the very time we need thorough oversight of the federal government's expansive coronavirus relief spending, the president is conducting a war on those tasked with holding him accountable.

Trump's removal of inspectors general has a deleterious impact on the entire inspector general community. Particularly with the removals of Michael Atkinson as inspector general for the intelligence community and Steve Linick as inspector general for the State Department, there's a strong indication that the president fired them simply because of their involvement in investigations that cast the administration in a negative light.

And it is hard to interpret Trump's decision to replace acting Defense Department inspector general Glenn Fine, chosen to lead a panel of inspectors general overseeing the coronavirus relief funds. Fine represents the best of the best within the IG community. He has a long history of successes in ferreting out sophisticated frauds and wrongdoing. That's a reason to keep him, not replace him.

The inspectors general who remain have every reason to be concerned for themselves and their subordinates as they embark on investigations that could turn up unwelcome findings or evidence of a crime or misconduct. They will worry that they will be damned if they do - and allowed to remain only if they don't.

But perhaps more concerning are the individuals the president has named to replace some of the career civil servants that he has removed.

The new acting inspectors general at the State and Transportation departments are both political appointees chosen from within their departments, and both will reportedly remain in their current roles at their respective departments. This presents a number of issues.

Appointing an official to investigate an agency while still reporting to that agency head presents a huge conflict of interest and runs contrary to the rule of law. It should be explicitly barred. These officials will also be privy to confidential information and the complaints and identities of whistleblowers. This is disturbing and could leave whistleblowers afraid to come forward if they witness wrongdoing.

It's also worrisome that these nominees might lack the proper qualifications since they were pulled from the ranks of the departments. Inspectors general typically have a background in investigations or auditing.

We need experienced inspectors general who are committed to conducting rigorous oversight, now more than ever. The federal government is poised to spend trillions of dollars in coronavirus relief aid, and the inspectors general face the daunting task of monitoring that spending and holding the administration accountable.

In fact, several of the ousted inspectors general would have held seats on the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee, a panel of inspectors general established to conduct oversight over the coronavirus relief spending. To conduct effective oversight and speak freely about sensitive matters, members of the PRAC will need to trust one another. I have a hard time imagining the career investigators on the committee will feel comfortable discussing sensitive matters with political appointees still working in other roles within the administration. Without this necessary trust, the PRAC could be of limited value.

Given these troubling circumstances, Congress needs to step in and protect the independence of inspectors general. It must hold hearings with top State Department officials and intelligence community officials to get to the bottom of the Linick and Atkinson firings. Some members have requested more information on the reasoning behind these removals, but they must also push for depositions and testimony from the top officials involved in the decision-making process.

After the Watergate scandals, Congress passed the Inspector General Act to reassure the nation. It represented a visible sign that we remained a great and confident republic committed to self-scrutiny and clean government. 

(At this time of Trumpzism), there could not be a worse moment to break that pact with our citizens.

*Williams served as inspector general of the U.S. Postal Service, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Treasury Department, Internal Revenue Service, Social Security Administration and Nuclear Regulatory Commission during four presidential administrations.

Donald Trump is politically circling the drain

"It is sometimes said that wars make presidents great; tragedies and disasters can at the very least make their greatest moments. The enduring images of many presidencies came when the commander in chief had to rally and console the nation," David A. Graham

Donald Trump's failed leadership must be flushed out of our political system

\\\\\\\New England Journal of Medicine - On January 19, 2020, a 35-year-old man presented to an urgent care clinic in Snohomish County, Washington, with a 4-day history of cough and subjective fever. 

Atlantic Magazine article by  David A. Graham:  It’s been 111 days since the first reported case of the coronavirus in the United States. It’s been 57 days since President Trump issued social-distancing guidelines, and 12 days since they expired. 

Yet the Trump administration still has no plan for dealing with the global pandemic or its fallout. The president has cast doubt on the need for a vaccine or expanded testing. He has no evident plan for contact tracing. He has no treatment ideas beyond the drug remdesivir, since Trump’s marketing campaign for hydroxychloroquine ended in disaster. And, facing the worst economy since the Great Depression, the White House has no plan for that, either, beyond a quixotic hope that consumer demand will snap back as soon as businesses reopen.

Echoing his breezy language in the earliest days of the pandemic, Trump has in recent days returned to a blithe faith that the disease will simply disappear of its own accord, without a major government response.

Stupid Donald Trump! 

“I feel about vaccines like I feel about tests: This is going to go away without a vaccine,” Trump said Friday. “It’s going to go away, and we’re not going to see it again, hopefully, after a period of time.”

He added: “They say it’s going to go—that doesn’t mean this year—doesn’t mean it’s going to be gone, frankly, by fall or after the fall. But eventually it’s going to go away. The question is, will we need a vaccine? At some point it’s going to probably go away by itself. If we had a vaccine that would be very helpful.”

As for the cratering economy, which on Friday produced the worst jobs numbers on record, Trump shrugged. “We’re in no rush, we’re in no rush,” he said.

The president’s shiftlessness in the face of the greatest crisis of his presidency, and the greatest political threat during it, is confounding. Of course, Trump has faced mortal political threats before; less than five months ago, he became only the third president in American history to be impeached. He’s shown a remarkable ability to survive damaging situations. And his plans have often been derided by skeptics as unwise, unrealistic, or simplistic. This situation is different, though: Grappling with a multifront crisis, Trump seems to have no plan at all.

Let’s begin with efforts against the illness itself. The 45 days during which Trump recommended social distancing were meant to prevent hospitals from being swamped with patients, and give the government time to devise more effective measures. 

But when that period ended at the end of April, Trump simply let his recommendations lapse, opting not to extend them in favor of vague calls for reopening the economy.

Those six weeks didn’t actually buy the country much time, because the White House wasted them. With New York City removed from the numbers, the national curve hasn’t flattened at all. States continue to fend for themselves on tests and personal protective equipment. Trump held a White House event yesterday to tout growth in testing in the U.S., but the president’s rhetoric was misleading. The U.S. does not, as he claimed, lead the world in testing, on a per capita basis. He also continues to compare the U.S. rate favorably to South Korea’s, eliding that South Korea was able to control its outbreak sooner by testing faster, and thereby reducing its need for testing.

As my colleague Robinson Meyer has reported, based on figures in the COVID Tracking Project, which is housed at The Atlantic, the U.S. has increased testing but still needs to expand it dramatically to match expert recommendations. “To an almost astonishing degree, the U.S. has no national plan for achieving this goal,” Meyer writes. “There is no effort at the federal level that has mustered anything like the funding, coordination, or real resources that experts across the political spectrum say is needed to safely reopen the country.”

Trump’s struggles to convey any emotion but anger have been foretold in past crises. Consider the first great external disaster to strike the Trump administration, the 2017 hurricane season. Visiting Texas, the president seemed unable to relate to anything other than the massive size of Hurricane Harvey. And despite fitful attempts to telegraph that he cared, he stumbled even worse in Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria. Trump argued that the storm was not a “real catastrophe” like Hurricane Katrina and callously tossed rolls of paper towels to desperate aid-seekers.

Trump’s inability to register the suffering may have played into the disastrous federal response to the storm. Eventual estimates placed the death toll from Maria at about 3,000 people, making it far more lethal than Katrina, and among the worst natural disasters in American history.