2 month later, Trump still doesn’t have a coronavirus plan| Trump Has No Plan

coronavirus

2 month later, Trump still doesn’t have a coronavirus plan| Trump Has No Plan

Here’s the reality: the lockout is fiscally unsustainable, so from now on, America can’t bear it until a vaccine. And you don’t have to take that from me. “You can’t be 18 months in the lockout,” says Dr. Michael Osterholm, founder of Center for Science and Policy on Infectious Disease. “As we say, we are trying to kill civilization because we don’t realize what we’re trying to do with it.”

And that is also the truth: Reopening without a means of managing the coronavirus would be dangerous to both human life and economic prosperity because an escalating death rate would push states back into shutdown. “We simply can not let the virus go,” says Osterholm. “Thousands of people will suffer and our hospital system will be shut down, not just for those with COVID but also everyone with a health condition.

“What we require,” he continues, “is a strategy.”

It is scary. More than 60 days since President Trump proclaimed the novel coronavirus a national disaster, there is still no specific strategic roadmap on what is to come next. “The shutdown is not intended to be a lasting state of affairs; it’s supposed to be a big pause button that gives you time to get ready for the next step,” says Jeremy Konyndyk, from the think tank at the Center for Global Growth.

Yet the Delay was lost by the Trump administration. The US should have established the surveillance, contact tracing, and quarantine systems needed over the last two months to successfully end the lockout and return to normalcy — as most of its peer countries have done. Rather Trump mixed discipline with showmanship, playing the tyrant on tv while refusing to perform the hard job. He ‘s got all the airwaves under control and abdicated his duties. As a consequence, the improvement America made toward the coronavirus has slowed, just though the lockout has thrown the nation into turmoil.

I sound more compassionate to the demonstrators than others, even those who want states to reopen, who think the lockout expenses are disproportionate despite the obvious benefits. The economic suffering is true and no way to foresee its conclusion, no simple explanation has been granted of the intent behind their sacrifice. But the terrible dilemma they say we face — between perpetual shutdown or irresponsible reopening — must be known for what it is: the inability of our elected representatives to build a more stable, halfway stage.

“What we hope to prevent in the reopening process is to establish the circumstances that caused us to have to remain home first,” writes the Caitlin Rivers at Johns Hopkins Health Protection Centre. That was the job of the Trump administration — they either had to or wanted help to convince the states to do anything.

We fell. This is the most serious and total disappointment in the history of Presidential leadership.

They are accustomed to public discussions over whether the president wants the correct strategy or the incorrect one. You may presume the condition here is this.

There is a range of proposals to restore them at this point from think tanks and researchers, policy-makers and epidemiologists, liberals, and conservatives. They differ in a way that is critical, divisive. There are proposals on mass testing which go all-in. Others think of a massive, automated security system. Others focus on states; some emphasize the position of the Federal government. And specifics worth exploring exist inside the plans: Which amount of danger is acceptable? Which advice would be special for urban towns and rural areas? Who finds a job indispensable? How to stop mass unemployment? What is feasible in the technical sense?

The Trump administration may have selected or created its own all of these proposals. But they didn’t. The nearest that has come is a series of protocols for contacting states before reopening. You will read them by yourself on the “Opening America” landing page of the White House. The recommendations are not exactly a strategy, but at least they are a framework: they call for states to reopen after caseloads have dropped for 14 days after clinics are willing to regularly monitor their healthcare staff, while touch tracking infrastructure is underway.

However, President Trump shows neither familiarity with his guidelines, nor support. He frequently calls for states to restart, even if they have not fulfilled the standards which his administration has suggested. For proof his string of tweets asking for “LIBERATE!” to right-wing demonstrators. “Stay-at-home directives from Michigan, Virginia, and Minnesota undermined his administration’s instructions and generated chaos for state governments struggling to tackle a crisis.

Americans don’t have a successful dictator, but we do have someone on Television portraying a weak king, so he prevents other politicians from performing their work effectively.

Many of Trump’s supporters also tried to portray the legislative reaction of the president — or lack of it — as a moral devotion to populism in the limited government. “He has offered federalism and private industry pride of place — welcoming the populism and talents of our great governors and mayors, our outstanding corporate representatives and talented businesses,” Christopher DeMuth wrote in the Wall Street Journal.

This is unconvincing but imaginative. Harvard’s Safra Center for Ethics has drawn up a comprehensive blueprint that supports a federalist solution and illustrates how it could operate. If states want to assume the lead, they claim, the federal government will help them in three ways: organize the supply chain so that states will not end up in a ruinous battle of bidding against each other, issue the debt required to prop up state and local expenditures as revenue declines, and mobilize the immense research tools of the federal government to guarantee that the best possible data is collected

But that’s not happening now. He frequently calls for states to restart, even if they have not fulfilled the standards which his administration has suggested. ” Diplomatically, they avoid any mention of the ongoing attempts of the president to promote political strife toward the governors he dislikes.

Trump’s commitment to state criteria has been transactional rather than metaphysical. He was frank in his conviction that his government would only communicate with the Governors who respected him politically sufficiently. Trump claimed he had told governor Mike Pence at a news conference, “Don’t call Washington Governor. Your time with him has been lost. Don’t name the lady in Michigan.'” The Trump team is maneuvering through the grudges and desires of the president, in this, like with so much else.

States, too, have to work through the Trump administration to ensure that they react. Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, a Republican, told the Washington Post in a stunning revelation that after purchasing 500,000 tests from South Korea, he made sure that the plane carrying the tests arrived under the safety of state troops because he believed the federal government might seize the tests it had struggled to obtain for itself. The step allegedly irritated Trump, who “saw the agreement with South Korea through Maryland as an attempt to shame the president.”

This is not a man that trusts in federalism, to say the obvious.

Forget a plan. There’s not even a goal.
In reality, it is inconsistent down. So I’m told it all along.

As my colleague Matthew Yglesias suggested, a target hasn’t yet been selected by the White House — and thus by the government. The Trump administration has never determined whether the aim is “mitigation,” in which we slow down the transmission of the virus to prevent crippling the health system, or “suppression,” in which we seek to kill the virus to save lives. As Thomas Friedman writes not pursuing either goal; instead, officials are pursuing Sweden’s laissez-faire approach to the virus, and Trump “just hasn’t told the country or its coronavirus task force, or perhaps even himself.”

This, therefore, is the state of affairs: The White House has no strategy, it has no structure, it has no ideology and it has no aim. That’s not that such things are unlikely. There are hundreds of proposals flying about at this stage and thousands of governments selling templates she might pick from. The response from Germany was positive, and I’m sure officials will share the lessons they’ve learned. Professional baseball is restarting in South Korea, and so far about a dozen cases of Covid-19 have been recorded in Taiwan during May.

It’s not like the president is doing the wrong thing — he’s doing nothing essentially. Yet he has mixed a pragmatic passivity with the ability of a showman to control the story and the fascination of a professional street warrior with settling scores, and he makes the role of governors and mayors more challenging, not offering them what they need to defeat the plague, nor having them make their own decisions free from his intervention and criticism.

The consequence, as David Wallace-Wells writes in New York magazine, is that “the nation has done effectively zero of the requisite preparatory research needed to start reopening comfortably and returning to a reasonable sense of regular existence.”

Americans made tremendous sacrifices to buy their time in government and wasted that time. That’s why we ‘re faced with a deeply divisive and polarizing discussion about constant lockdowns and irresponsible reopening: the government has refused to do as successful regimes have achieved to provide a viable choice in many nations.

“It’s like the line from Lewis Carroll, ‘If you don’t know where you’re headed, every route can bring you out there,'” says Osterholm. “All right, I don’t know where we are headed.”

In the face of increasing prices, Tokyo Olympics could slash ‘extras’

TOKYO – Tokyo Olympic officials and the IOC said Thursday they’ll remove any of the bonuses from the cancelled games next year, an effort to reduce what’s estimated to be trillions of dollars in potential expenses.

John Coates, president of the Ioc, who leads the Tokyo inspection panel, said at a teleconference that reductions in fields such as catering and lavish “real sights” for public viewing is possible.

“Do we have to provide advertisers, distributors and regional Olympic committees with the same amount of hospitality? “Coates asked, indicating pandemic coronavirus could dampen enthusiasm. “Because of the economic downturn, many broadcasters may not have as big a presence of advertisers here.”

Coates talked about the distinction between “must-have” apps and “nice-to-have” items, which can be left out before the July 23, 2021 Olympics begin.

Coates has made it known that organisers in Tokyo and the Japanese government would bear the billions of new expenses.

He has said IOC will make an immediate donation of “several hundred million dollars” to support distressed foreign sports federations and national Olympic committees remain afloat. The money is not intended for the organisers in Tokyo and the governments in Japan, which are planning for the games.

IOC President Thomas Bach mentioned the contribution in a newspaper article Sunday interview but was not specific about the recipients of the aid.

“We are not going to stand by and watch our international federations collapse,” Coates said.

The responsibility for Japan to cover the extra costs is laid out in the “Host City Deal” concluded in 2013 when the IOC granted the games to Tokyo. Neither the IOC nor Japanese officials offer cost estimates, but media reports in Japan suggest an additional $2-to-$6-billion bill in addition to current spending.

Officially Japan claims it is costing $12.6 billion, but a nationwide report suggests the amount is twice as high. Whatever the sum, public capital is anything but $5.6 billion.

This year, the IOC was supposed to compensate federations some $600 million, a proceeds from the Tokyo Olympics. Some federations depend almost entirely on contributions from IOCs.

A reporter for Japanese broadcaster NHK has requested organizing committee chairman Yoshiro Mori to support Tokyo if the IOC “would chip in on costs.”

“We’re in the process of researching and analyzing the additional expenses,” Mori said. “We realize of course we’re going to have to pay what we have to pay for. The general aim, though, is to raising the costs as much as possible.’

Tokyo CEO Toshiro Muto vowed to look fresh “at the quality of service we are offering.”

“We would of course respond to demands from federations and national Olympic committees,” said Muto. “If we replied entirely to all inquiries by such bodies, the costs will be exorbitant.”

Coates was asked to clarify how Japan would be in condition in 15 months to host the Olympics. Muto also voiced worry last week.

Coronavirus infections in Tokyo have been spiking, and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has called for immediate measures, urging people to remain at home.

The games from 206 national Olympic committees hold 11,000 Olympic and 4,400 Paralympic competitors and staff. They still depend on massive global transportation, and would require a go-ahead for large crowds — 75,000 at the current national stadium in Tokyo or 10,000 to 15,000 at other arenas.

“We allowed ourselves as much flexibility as we could,” Coates said, finding out that several people decided to reschedule for the 2021 season. “It was a reason to move as late as possible.”

15 Years Ago Today-Best Battle Of All Time?

In May, there are quite a few major combat anniversaries out here. But in reality, for others, this month’s greatest, strongest, and most fiercely exciting battle that needs to be enjoyed for everyone is the everyone-out warriors Diego Corrales and Jose Luis Castillo put on 135 pounds.

15 Years Ago Today-Best Battle Of All Time

Now, it was 15 years ago, that “Chico” encountered the rugged, gritty, and smart Mexican at The Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas. What preceded was indeed a crazy war, one that ended so incredible that even seasoned observers such as Dan Rafael were left “actually trembling” (Dan’s words).

These two gorgeously trained, brave, and formidable prizefighters have brought us everything from the opening bell that is truly remarkable. Rarely letting go breakneck, let alone trying to initiate a clinch, Coralles and Castillo ripped at each other-for nine incredible rounds. Standing toe-to-toe, struggling to take each other to a hellish location the two seemed to have made a vow of anonymity on their way there, both men gave much too much. Somebody had to offer it.

The trade show, the strong, well-placed punches, was gut-wrenching. The relatively tiny audience was treated to a spectacular. A guerrilla war. Wrestling once in a lifetime!
Then came the amazing tenth round, the final round of the fight which had already bagged the 2005 Battle Of The Year award. What happened in the tenth has turned a huge battle into a battle that will last forever.

Both people became exhausted; both were numbered, and blood was pouring out. Castillo then toughly decked out Corrales. “Chico” purchased precious seconds, as his mouthpiece emerged. Corrales this time purposely spit out the gumshield up but then sent south a second time. He earned more time but a point was deducted. But the least of these are marks. Here it was a fight for life.

And then, there, there, doing something that no weary fighter can do, Corrales, reaching far into his being, instead of rumbling straight at Castillo, punching him and trapping him in the ground, tossing all he had left in his exhausted, deadweight arms then pounding away to force the end. It had been jaw-dropping. It was almost too difficult to comprehend for a veteran fan of the war.

Diego Corrales had arisen from a certain defeat to take out Castillo’s war as no one did.

The Largest Fight ever? Maybe. Many people claim that Corrales KO10 Castillo merits the golden distinction-putting the fight well above the iconic Ali-Frazier, Hagler-Hearns, Barrera-Morales, and Gatti-Ward sizzlers.

In essence, everything is down to the point of view, and nothing else. Yet no fighting enthusiast will ever assemble a trustworthy Top-10 best battles and have no place for the dizzying battle that went down now, 15 years ago.

What a weeping shame “Chico” is no longer with us, his sensational heroics won him in 2005 will no longer bask in the highly deserving glory.