7 ms·

First Question: Yes. But the mission and responsibility was not eliminated. To claim that is irresponsible at best. Second Question: Obviously not. Third Ques

First Question: Yes. But the mission and responsibility was not eliminated. To claim that is irresponsible at best. Second Question: Obviously not. Third Question: The Snopes piece is devious in that it suggests, as a result of the restructuring, the Trump administration single-handedly gave up the mission and responsibity of responding to infectious disease crises, pandemics and bio-weapon attacks. The reality is that there are layers upon layers of civilian and military procedure and doctrine supporting this mission and responibility.

caconym_ 7y ago
> Yes. But the mission and responsibility was not eliminated. To claim that is irresponsible at best. > The Snopes piece is devious in that it suggests, as a result of the restructuring, the Trump administration single-handedly gave up the mission and responsibity of responding to infectious disease crises, pandemics and bio-weapon attacks. If I own a pizza restaurant, one could say that its "mission and responsibility" are to make pizza, but if I fire all my kitchen staff, how am I going to fulfill that mission when someone walks in the door and orders a pizza? I'm not, is the answer. But that contradiction will only become apparent when somebody walks in the door and orders a pizza, at which time it's too late for me to do anything but send them away empty-handed. That is the point we're at now, except instead of making a pizza we're trying to save our society and economy from the ravages of a global pandemic. > The reality is that there are layers upon layers of civilian and military procedure and doctrine supporting this mission and responibility. I don't think anybody's saying otherwise, but it's an open question whether the organizations that embody these layers all have sufficient leadership and funding to respond to actual emergencies. So far, it seems that the answer is generally no—exhibit A would be our profound inability to test at scale. On the other hand, certain local public health systems are certainly stepping up to meet the challenge in proactive and effective ways. I wouldn't lay 100% of the blame on the Trump administration, but they've taken actions (e.g. the subject of this thread) that have undeniably damaged our ability to respond to crises of this sort, and their messaging at the highest level has been absolutely awful, totally disconnected with reality. But (unlike climate change) this is a case where reality is going to come knocking really soon, and in the final accounting we will see just how well or poorly the whole thing was managed. And you know what? I really do hope all the "hysteria" is a leftist conspiracy, or whatever. That would be great. I am rooting for Trump, Pence, and all the other goblins in his orbit to do a great job handling it. I really don't like Trump, but if he knocks this out of the park I'd even consider voting for him in the fall over whoever ends up bubbling up to the top of the Dem field, given the choices we seem to have before us at the moment. Somehow, though, I don't really see that happening.

caconym_ 7y ago

> Yes. But the mission and responsibility was not eliminated. To claim that is irresponsible at best. > The Snopes piece is devious in that it suggests, as a result of the restructuring, the Trump administration single-handedly gave up the mission and responsibity of responding to infectious disease crises, pandemics and bio-weapon attacks. If I own a pizza restaurant, one could say that its "mission and responsibility" are to make pizza, but if I fire all my kitchen staff, how am I going to fulfill that mission when someone walks in the door and orders a pizza? I'm not, is the answer. But that contradiction will only become apparent when somebody walks in the door and orders a pizza, at which time it's too late for me to do anything but send them away empty-handed. That is the point we're at now, except instead of making a pizza we're trying to save our society and economy from the ravages of a global pandemic. > The reality is that there are layers upon layers of civilian and military procedure and doctrine supporting this mission and responibility. I don't think anybody's saying otherwise, but it's an open question whether the organizations that embody these layers all have sufficient leadership and funding to respond to actual emergencies. So far, it seems that the answer is generally no—exhibit A would be our profound inability to test at scale. On the other hand, certain local public health systems are certainly stepping up to meet the challenge in proactive and effective ways. I wouldn't lay 100% of the blame on the Trump administration, but they've taken actions (e.g. the subject of this thread) that have undeniably damaged our ability to respond to crises of this sort, and their messaging at the highest level has been absolutely awful, totally disconnected with reality. But (unlike climate change) this is a case where reality is going to come knocking really soon, and in the final accounting we will see just how well or poorly the whole thing was managed. And you know what? I really do hope all the "hysteria" is a leftist conspiracy, or whatever. That would be great. I am rooting for Trump, Pence, and all the other goblins in his orbit to do a great job handling it. I really don't like Trump, but if he knocks this out of the park I'd even consider voting for him in the fall over whoever ends up bubbling up to the top of the Dem field, given the choices we seem to have before us at the moment. Somehow, though, I don't really see that happening.