COVID-19

[IrishLax]

It's never been about the young people (unless you're the Big Ten feigning concern over the health of student athletes). It's about exposure and transmission to the people interacting with the young people. A 3rd grade teacher in North Carolina just died of COVID, and they don't think she contracted it from her students or spread it to them because she wore PPE, but now they have to quarantine and test the whole class less they transmit it to their parents.

The most common factors contributing to high risk are age and weight. Fat people and old people get it way worse. It's a vascular disease.

With that being said, I have friends in their 20s in DC who have gotten it and it has fucked them up bad. Some months later still don't have taste/smell back. They didn't have to be hospitalized, but one still can't breathe right or run like he used to. Another got tested due to contact tracing and was positive and never got any symptoms. So it's a crapshoot.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

I mentioned my aunt earlier in this thread. She got COVID. Was treated with Redemsivir and oxygen etc... stayed in the hospital and ultimately improved after a week and was sent home.

I spoke with her this week and she is now experiencing intermittent but increasingly prolonged periods of decreased lung function and oxygen levels. She has returned to the hospital multiple items but since she isnt testing positive for C19 they treat her and send her back home.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

I am seeing reports that the WH is denying CDC's request to contact trace the outbreak post ACB confirmation.

 

[Old Man Mike]

I think that it's wonderful that our college aged students have a robustness which allows them to (generally) get past COVID without doing much damage to them. If we all don't applaud that, then something's badly wrong.

BUT I also wish that downplayers would stop talking about this like a statistics game. People aren't "statistics" unless one only cares about oneself (an almost psychiatric situation) or "the state of the consumer economy" (definitely not a WWJD stance.) Tens of thousands of people have died whether any of them are college students or not. College students can infect other people. Other people can die. They aren't statistics.

I'm 80 now, so perhaps can be accused of bias. I doubt it. I can't ever remember not caring about other people enough that it was acceptable that I would choose to serve myself rather than make "quite inconvenient" sacrifices if the well-being of other people was an issue. That's what my Dad taught me, and later what the Gospels taught me. I am sticking with those two Guys. They taught me what it meant to be a man and a moral one in service to others.

If one reads philosophy about the nature of the Good Society, the idea of weighing convenience over lives on the basis of statistics is pretty far down the list of what constitutes a moral civilization.

 

[IrishLax]

I am seeing reports that the WH is denying CDC's request to contact trace the outbreak post ACB confirmation.

Yes, there were reports last night from WH sources that they are not doing any contact tracing or permitting anyone else to do contact tracing. They did relent and give NJ information to do contact tracing for the Bedminster fundraiser. At the WH, a number of low level staffers (e.g. cleaners, cooks, attendants, etc.) have also reportedly tested positive.

I'd have to actually check the numbers on this, but allegedly the WH over the past weekend contributed more new cases to DC than the rest of the residents combined.

 

[TorontoGold]

I think that it's wonderful that our college aged students have a robustness which allows them to (generally) get past COVID without doing much damage to them. If we all don't applaud that, then something's badly wrong.

BUT I also wish that downplayers would stop talking about this like a statistics game. People aren't "statistics" unless one only cares about oneself (an almost psychiatric situation) or "the state of the consumer economy" (definitely not a WWJD stance.) Tens of thousands of people have died whether any of them are college students or not. College students can infect other people. Other people can die. They aren't statistics.

I'm 80 now, so perhaps can be accused of bias. I doubt it. I can't ever remember not caring about other people enough that it was acceptable that I would choose to serve myself rather than make "quite inconvenient" sacrifices if the well-being of other people was an issue. That's what my Dad taught me, and later what the Gospels taught me. I am sticking with those two Guys. They taught me what it meant to be a man and a moral one in service to others.

If one reads philosophy about the nature of the Good Society, the idea of weighing convenience over lives on the basis of statistics is pretty far down the list of what constitutes a moral civilization.

Agree with your comments, Mike. I think the Clay Travis truthers are fundamentally stuck on the transmission of the virus. Sure, young people are almost guaranteed to get through an infection but the secondary infections to the community aren't registering with them. Let alone residual effects.

A family friend who's daughter caught COVID in May, still can't go back to her regular cheerleader routine for U of Arizona FWIW.

 

[tussin]

Yes, there were reports last night from WH sources that they are not doing any contact tracing or permitting anyone else to do contact tracing. They did relent and give NJ information to do contact tracing for the Bedminster fundraiser. At the WH, a number of low level staffers (e.g. cleaners, cooks, attendants, etc.) have also reportedly tested positive.

I'd have to actually check the numbers on this, but allegedly the WH over the past weekend contributed more new cases to DC than the rest of the residents combined.

The Trump camp is incredibly stupid. From both a political and public health perspective, they seem to be making every wrong move when it comes to handling this super-spread event in the Rose Garden. It's unbelievable.

They can still maintain the "time to open up the country" stance while not acting like complete assholes.

 

[tussin]

I think that it's wonderful that our college aged students have a robustness which allows them to (generally) get past COVID without doing much damage to them. If we all don't applaud that, then something's badly wrong.

BUT I also wish that downplayers would stop talking about this like a statistics game. People aren't "statistics" unless one only cares about oneself (an almost psychiatric situation) or "the state of the consumer economy" (definitely not a WWJD stance.) Tens of thousands of people have died whether any of them are college students or not. College students can infect other people. Other people can die. They aren't statistics.

Agree and disagree. It's cold to talk about individuals as if they are nothing more than a statistic. But when it comes to policy making, the statistics are by far the most important factor.

 

[notredomer23]

I think that it's wonderful that our college aged students have a robustness which allows them to (generally) get past COVID without doing much damage to them. If we all don't applaud that, then something's badly wrong.

BUT I also wish that downplayers would stop talking about this like a statistics game. People aren't "statistics" unless one only cares about oneself (an almost psychiatric situation) or "the state of the consumer economy" (definitely not a WWJD stance.) Tens of thousands of people have died whether any of them are college students or not. College students can infect other people. Other people can die. They aren't statistics.

I'm 80 now, so perhaps can be accused of bias. I doubt it. I can't ever remember not caring about other people enough that it was acceptable that I would choose to serve myself rather than make "quite inconvenient" sacrifices if the well-being of other people was an issue. That's what my Dad taught me, and later what the Gospels taught me. I am sticking with those two Guys. They taught me what it meant to be a man and a moral one in service to others.

If one reads philosophy about the nature of the Good Society, the idea of weighing convenience over lives on the basis of statistics is pretty far down the list of what constitutes a moral civilization.

Mike, respectfully disagree. I have the belief, supported by many high level epidemiologists such as Sunetra Gupta at Oxford and Francois Balloux at the University College of London, that full scale lockdowns (not China-level) paradoxically kill more people by allowing the virus to slowly creep over time into more vulnerable populations, rather than letting the segment of the population that is equipped to deal with COVID to deal with it and getting that immunity.

I don't understand why this topic has been painted as if you are anti-lockdown you are a bad, immoral person. Considering this is a novel coronavirus, there should be some nuance allowed in the debate IMO. I think what we are seeing that unless you are willing to do what China did, you essentially as a society have to deal with it because the virus will just reemerge in segments of the population that haven't been hit yet.

 

[Irishize]

The Trump camp is incredibly stupid. From both a political and public health perspective, they seem to be making every wrong move when it comes to handling this super-spread event in the Rose Garden. It's unbelievable.

They can still maintain the "time to open up the country" stance while not acting like complete assholes.

Agreed. At least empathetic to the fact that it is leading to 200K+ deaths. I read a Pro Publica article (see below) on the debate of kids returning to school in B’more. All the data pointed to opening the schools back up but when Trump Admin pushed it as well, the unions freaked out b/c they doubted his concern vs his desire for PR.

On one hand you had the unions cutting off their collective nose to spite their face but would that have been the case had Trump not been so one-sided? If he had shown empathy and a willingness to come together for the greater good, then it would have reflected poorly on the unions in this particular case b/c he had data on his side. Or they could have just come to an agreement w/ everyone’s best interest in mind.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Devastating account of how we let adult politics, pop science coverage, and school employee interest ruin the future for an entire generation of disadvantaged kids. Please read! (CC: <a href="https://twitter.com/VPrasadMDMPH?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@VPrasadMDMPH</a>) <a href="https://t.co/2dGtGjJ1dZ">https://t.co/2dGtGjJ1dZ</a></p>— Vladimir Kogan (@vkoganpolisci) <a href="https://twitter.com/vkoganpolisci/status/1312845078726152193?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 4, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[IrishLax]

Mike, respectfully disagree. I have the belief, supported by many high level epidemiologists such as Sunetra Gupta at Oxford and Francois Balloux at the University College of London, that full scale lockdowns (not China-level) paradoxically kill more people by allowing the virus to slowly creep over time into more vulnerable populations, rather than letting the segment of the population that is equipped to deal with COVID to deal with it and getting that immunity.

I don't understand why this topic has been painted as if you are anti-lockdown you are a bad, immoral person. Considering this is a novel coronavirus, there should be some nuance allowed in the debate IMO. I think what we are seeing that unless you are willing to do what China did, you essentially as a society have to deal with it because the virus will just reemerge in segments of the population that haven't been hit yet.

This is a good post.

I think that we've learned a couple things from watching other countries:
1. If you do what Sweden did -- which was isolate vulnerable people and let everyone who isn't vulnerable continue as "normal" -- you're going to make it through with minimal economic impact and what many would consider acceptable losses.
2. If you do what South Korea did -- which is lean on testing, technology, tracing, etc. -- you can also defeat the virus without prolonged lockdowns. This requires, above all else, societal trust in government and buy-in to the processes.
3. If you do what New Zealand did -- which is lock everything hardcore -- you can eliminate the virus with minimal public health impact but significant economic impact. This is also difficult to execute without 1) geographic advantages or 2) authoritarian government with absolute power.

And there are many other "success" stories in between, like Denmark, Germany, and Canada.

What you can't do is have no central strategy, no cohesive messaging, and conflicting public health policy that isn't adhered to by a large portion of the population. As you said, what this leads to is a prolonged period of everything being generally fucked + more death + regional flareups on a rotating basis.

 

[Irishize]

It's never been about the young people (unless you're the Big Ten feigning concern over the health of student athletes). It's about exposure and transmission to the people interacting with the young people. A 3rd grade teacher in North Carolina just died of COVID, and they don't think she contracted it from her students or spread it to them because she wore PPE, but now they have to quarantine and test the whole class less they transmit it to their parents.

The most common factors contributing to high risk are age and weight. Fat people and old people get it way worse. It's a vascular disease.

With that being said, I have friends in their 20s in DC who have gotten it and it has fucked them up bad. Some months later still don't have taste/smell back. They didn't have to be hospitalized, but one still can't breathe right or run like he used to. Another got tested due to contact tracing and was positive and never got any symptoms. So it's a crapshoot.

You bring up the “elephant in the room” that the media &/or WH could/should use as a wake up call to address nationally. America is a morbidly obese gluttonous country. Everyone on this board can share anecdotes about seeing unhealthy citizens on a daily basis. We already know the US is one of the unhealthiest 1st world nations despite enormous spending on healthcare. Americans have to stop stuffing their faces w/ large portions of processed crap. At least limit portion size if you’re gonna consume utter shit. And get some exercise...go for a walk. It’s a wonder we don’t have a higher mortality rate when you see what adults of all ages have done to their health due to personal choices. Free will is a wonderful blessing but there are consequences for poor choices. None of us is perfect, but at least think of your long-term health instead of blaming someone or something else.

 

[Irishize]

And there are many other "success" stories in between, like Denmark, Germany, and Canada.

Yes. This dude compiled a list of 30 countries and compared their respective mortality rate year over year to give you an idea of the affects of COVID on their population.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">2020 was a strange year. A different year... The worst pandemic since 1918 hit the world. Everything came to a stop. Life wasn't. To see how terrible Covid19 was, I looked at the mortality of over 30 countries.<br>let's get in to this:<br><br>Thread <br>1/40</p>— 𓅓Ramon (@Rapatauxx) <a href="https://twitter.com/Rapatauxx/status/1312417246808072192?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 3, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Old Man Mike]

The choice of strategy that the CDC seemed to prefer was to lockdown hard, protect the vulnerables (with the attitude that they are not statistics) and await the vaccine which then frees the country up for everyone without catastrophic losses to any segment. Whether or not that is the hind-sighted best strategy, it is at least a morally chosen one. The level of "inconvenience" involved depends upon two things mainly: a. how long the research and development take; and b. how demanding people are about getting what they want in the economy and consumer society. I believe that The Church has supported this strategy as well because of its person-concerned basis.

Again, hindsight will tell (maybe) if this was the best approach. We do know a few things: because of our society's notorious me-centeredness, we are not really doing this plan, and because of our politics, we are not getting very good psychological support messaging to keep up the plan's intensity.

As to the executive's recent comment that coronavirus is less deadly than the flu, this is an immoral statement. It MIGHT be less deadly in an equal level laboratory situation (we do not know that) but it sure as he!l isn't less deadly in the real world circumstance where one has a vaccine and the other does not. Saying otherwise is outrageous. (by the way, seasonal flu kills about 20,000 to 60,000 US citizens annually. We know how many COVID has killed already even if one bullsh!ts the numbers downwards. We're at about 5times that. ... but we already know that don't we? Uhhh... POTUS .... don't we?)

 

[Irishize]

The choice of strategy that the CDC seemed to prefer was to lockdown hard, protect the vulnerables (with the attitude that they are not statistics) and await the vaccine which then frees the country up for everyone without catastrophic losses to any segment. Whether or not that is the hind-sighted best strategy, it is at least a morally chosen one. The level of "inconvenience" involved depends upon two things mainly: a. how long the research and development take; and b. how demanding people are about getting what they want in the economy and consumer society. I believe that The Church has supported this strategy as well because of its person-concerned basis.

Again, hindsight will tell (maybe) if this was the best approach. We do know a few things: because of our society's notorious me-centeredness, we are not really doing this plan, and because of our politics, we are not getting very good psychological support messaging to keep up the plan's intensity.

As to the executive's recent comment that coronavirus is less deadly than the flu, this is an immoral statement. It MIGHT be less deadly in an equal level laboratory situation (we do not know that) but it sure as he!l isn't less deadly in the real world circumstance where one has a vaccine and the other does not. Saying otherwise is outrageous. (by the way, seasonal flu kills about 20,000 to 60,000 US citizens annually. We know how many COVID has killed already even if one bullsh!ts the numbers downwards. We're at about 5times that. ... but we already know that don't we? Uhhh... POTUS .... don't we?)

The bolded can be read two ways & neither are wrong. I agree w/ your sentiment but you leave out others who have lost their lives b/c of the lockdown. Is it 200K? No. Does that make them any less tragic? No.

So I can sympathize w/ your point of people being reduced to statistics to the point of de-humanizing them. “Statistics are human beings w/ the tears wiped off” is the best description from a physician that I have heard.

Now think of those people who are rarely considered when assessing the impacts of COVID-19. Suicides are up, domestic abuse is up, alcohol/drug abuse is up year over year. Elective surgeries may sound benign but can save lives. Delayed colonoscopy can result in later stage colon cancer for example. Same goes for health screenings or chemo visits that were delayed or canceled due to the early months of the pandemic. It’s fair to say that well over 200K lives were lost due to the pandemic regardless if the person had died directly from the virus or not.

https://www.city-journal.org/deadly-cost-of-lockdown-policies

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

The choice of strategy that the CDC seemed to prefer was to lockdown hard, protect the vulnerables (with the attitude that they are not statistics) and await the vaccine which then frees the country up for everyone without catastrophic losses to any segment. Whether or not that is the hind-sighted best strategy, it is at least a morally chosen one. The level of "inconvenience" involved depends upon two things mainly: a. how long the research and development take; and b. how demanding people are about getting what they want in the economy and consumer society. I believe that The Church has supported this strategy as well because of its person-concerned basis.

Again, hindsight will tell (maybe) if this was the best approach. We do know a few things: because of our society's notorious me-centeredness, we are not really doing this plan, and because of our politics, we are not getting very good psychological support messaging to keep up the plan's intensity.

As to the executive's recent comment that coronavirus is less deadly than the flu, this is an immoral statement. It MIGHT be less deadly in an equal level laboratory situation (we do not know that) but it sure as he!l isn't less deadly in the real world circumstance where one has a vaccine and the other does not. Saying otherwise is outrageous. (by the way, seasonal flu kills about 20,000 to 60,000 US citizens annually. We know how many COVID has killed already even if one bullsh!ts the numbers downwards. We're at about 5times that. ... but we already know that don't we? Uhhh... POTUS .... don't we?)

Trump supposedly got better in less than 5 days when everyone else in the world who didnt die is symptomatic for 10-20 days. After taking his mask off (defiantly) for a photo op on camera at the WH, he looks to be laboring and in pain.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="und" dir="ltr"><a href="https://t.co/Nikl3gOwNM">pic.twitter.com/Nikl3gOwNM</a></p>— The Lincoln Project (@ProjectLincoln) <a href="https://twitter.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1313289304009973760?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 6, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Trump is GASPING! <a href="https://t.co/ZmRz0oe1K4">pic.twitter.com/ZmRz0oe1K4</a></p>— Mystery Solvent (@MysterySolvent) <a href="https://twitter.com/MysterySolvent/status/1313270093959311360?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 6, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">New: There are now 123 front-line workers in the Capitol complex who have have tested positive—or are presumed positive—for COVID-19, according to House Admin GOP Spokesperson Ashley Phelps.<br><br>Story coming.</p>— Chris Marquette (@ChrisMarquette_) <a href="https://twitter.com/ChrisMarquette_/status/1313560451784081408?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 6, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

oof

 

[dublinirish]

all of this reminds of the shirtless Putin photo ops to make him look like a man's man for Russian housewives and grandma's to vote for him

 

[Legacy]

Overall, NY residents are very happy with Cuomo and how he has dealt with the pandemic. Overcoming the spike, flattening the. curve and keeping strict control over reopening allows them to focus on the influenza season not complicating the season too much.

Those states that are seeing Covid positive rates go up as we enter the flu season are in a much different place, especially if they do little about instituting mitigation measures and have a higher population of people who do not usually get the seasonal flu vaccine.

Having a larger proportion of the population in the high risk groups ups the ante.

Coronavirus Maps: How Severe Is Your State's Outbreak?

 

[Old Man Mike]

I believe that the hard-lockdown-until-the-vaccine strategy was based on two powerful points of view: 1. As said, moral concerns for those having the greatest risk (especially as they would also have less personal choice to avoid infection in a wide-open society) and 2. the usual faith that economists and students of American resilience have that our juggernaut economy would recover from the COVID lockdown burden similarly to the way we recover from any recession --- maybe better, since in this case there would be (they hoped) understanding at all governmental levels, no name-calling blame, a come on America We can Do It War mentality, and a general US optimism that America overcomes things like this.

Our failure here is the product of the overlapping politics playing this dammed thing off tune instead of "All-in-it-together" cheerleading. Our horrible nation-dividing political strategies conspire to place as much unhelpful psychological sh!t in everyone's brain as possible.

 

[GoldenToTheGrave]

Rudy not looking so good on Fox News

https://twitter.com/josephabondy/status/1313618917806440448?s=20

 

[FDNYIrish1]

Overall, NY residents are very happy with Cuomo and how he has dealt with the pandemic. Overcoming the spike, flattening the. curve and keeping strict control over reopening allows them to focus on the influenza season not complicating the season too much.

Those states that are seeing Covid positive rates go up as we enter the flu season are in a much different place, especially if they do little about instituting mitigation measures and have a higher population of people who do not usually get the seasonal flu vaccine.

Having a larger proportion of the population in the high risk groups ups the ante.

Coronavirus Maps: How Severe Is Your State's Outbreak?

Wait,what? Lol I know not one New Yorker happy with Cuomo. Between him and Deblasio you could fit their fan clubs in a phone booth.

 

[Greenore]

This is a good post.

I think that we've learned a couple things from watching other countries:
1. If you do what Sweden did -- which was isolate vulnerable people and let everyone who isn't vulnerable continue as "normal" -- you're going to make it through with minimal economic impact and what many would consider acceptable losses.
2. If you do what South Korea did -- which is lean on testing, technology, tracing, etc. -- you can also defeat the virus without prolonged lockdowns. This requires, above all else, societal trust in government and buy-in to the processes.
3. If you do what New Zealand did -- which is lock everything hardcore -- you can eliminate the virus with minimal public health impact but significant economic impact. This is also difficult to execute without 1) geographic advantages or 2) authoritarian government with absolute power.

And there are many other "success" stories in between, like Denmark, Germany, and Canada.

What you can't do is have no central strategy, no cohesive messaging, and conflicting public health policy that isn't adhered to by a large portion of the population. As you said, what this leads to is a prolonged period of everything being generally fucked + more death + regional flareups on a rotating basis.

Lax, not trying to be adversarial but I think you are giving Canada too much credit. Our population distributions are pretty favorable compared to the rest of the world. The one Province that astounds me is British Columbia. Very high density on the West Coast and doing better than a lot of us. May be an anomaly but worth researching

Cheers and Go Irish!!.

 

[irishtrooper]

Overall, NY residents are very happy with Cuomo and how he has dealt with the pandemic. Overcoming the spike, flattening the. curve and keeping strict control over reopening allows them to focus on the influenza season not complicating the season too much.

Those states that are seeing Covid positive rates go up as we enter the flu season are in a much different place, especially if they do little about instituting mitigation measures and have a higher population of people who do not usually get the seasonal flu vaccine.

Having a larger proportion of the population in the high risk groups ups the ante.

Coronavirus Maps: How Severe Is Your State's Outbreak?

This is false

 

[TorontoGold]

Lax, not trying to be adversarial but I think you are giving Canada too much credit. Our population distributions are pretty favorable compared to the rest of the world. The one Province that astounds me is British Columbia. Very high density on the West Coast and doing better than a lot of us. May be an anomaly but worth researching

Cheers and Go Irish!!.

Respectfully, this isn't true. Ontario is quite dense, since our population is mostly contained to the most southern part. We only have around ~5k active cases. BC has been noted to have done well since their March break was a week later than those on the east coast so the travel was shut down before they could go on vacation, and they have a sound government.

 

[Ndaccountant]

This is a good post.

I think that we've learned a couple things from watching other countries:
1. If you do what Sweden did -- which was isolate vulnerable people and let everyone who isn't vulnerable continue as "normal" -- you're going to make it through with minimal economic impact and what many would consider acceptable losses.
2. If you do what South Korea did -- which is lean on testing, technology, tracing, etc. -- you can also defeat the virus without prolonged lockdowns. This requires, above all else, societal trust in government and buy-in to the processes.
3. If you do what New Zealand did -- which is lock everything hardcore -- you can eliminate the virus with minimal public health impact but significant economic impact. This is also difficult to execute without 1) geographic advantages or 2) authoritarian government with absolute power.

And there are many other "success" stories in between, like Denmark, Germany, and Canada.

What you can't do is have no central strategy, no cohesive messaging, and conflicting public health policy that isn't adhered to by a large portion of the population. As you said, what this leads to is a prolonged period of everything being generally fucked + more death + regional flareups on a rotating basis.

I am by no means an expert on different government structure across the world. But the US style of government was never set up to enable the type of solutions that others enacted. It's a fair critique say there wasn't a consistent message from the top. 100% agree and that is an abject failure. But the US was doomed from the start because no matter what Trump (or any other President for that matter) would demand at the federal level, you would have lawsuits being filed so fast that the orders would be negated. See what is happening across various state capitols. Take Michigan for example. Even at the state level, their orders were deemed unconstitutional.

What really needed to happen, was for everyone across the country to agree that this was an unprecedented time and it called for unique measures. But no matter if a R of D was in the WH, nobody would be able to successfully navigate that given the hyper partisan nature of the US in the last 15+ years. The country has not been united since the time period immediately after 9/11. Sad to think what it will take to get us aligned if a global pandemic can't.

 

[NorthDakota]

Wait,what? Lol I know not one New Yorker happy with Cuomo. Between him and Deblasio you could fit their fan clubs in a phone booth.

The one thing that unites everyone at school is a hatred for Warren Wilhelm Jr. Cuomo is popular with the libs.

 

[IrishLax]

Lax, not trying to be adversarial but I think you are giving Canada too much credit. Our population distributions are pretty favorable compared to the rest of the world. The one Province that astounds me is British Columbia. Very high density on the West Coast and doing better than a lot of us. May be an anomaly but worth researching

Cheers and Go Irish!!.

Which is really the correct comparison to be making. The major cities in Canada are simply doing much, much better than comparable cities in the United States. And the country as a whole is as well. It's not some miracle case study, but it's a lot better than what's going on south of the border... and there's a reason Canada effectively closed their borders with the United States (but not the other way around) a long time ago.

 

[Legacy]

87% of NYers Approve of Cuomo’s Handling of the Coronavirus (Siena)

Siena is one of only six pollsters to earn A+ rating from FiveThirtyEight.com.

The latest favorability poll on Cuomo's handling of the coronavirus was a 73-24 percent margin, down slightly from 76-21 percent in June.

From July: Poll: Gov. Cuomo’s approval rating soaring during coronavirus outbreak

Cuomo is rejecting DeBlasio's shutdown plan of NYC.

 

[tussin]

87% of NYers Approve of Cuomo’s Handling of the Coronavirus (Siena)

Siena is one of only six pollsters to earn A+ rating from FiveThirtyEight.com.

He’s been objectively terrible. Public approval has little to do with actual outcomes and more to do with party loyalty and media narrative.