Coronavirus & 2020

[Lord Halifax]

Let's say the virus recedes in the summer and then returns in October. Turnout will plummet, and the results could be heavily influenced by which areas have better voting infrastructure or have been less hard hit, or have mail in voting.

Who would benefit the most from that?

[Lord Halifax]

He has an opportunity to actually look Presidential for once, but he's already failing.

1) He started off by pretending this was no big deal.  Those clips are going to haunt him.

2) I don't think any of us know if the administration as a whole has been incompetent in terms of testing kits and response, etc., but he hasn't looked serious enough about it.  He basically deferred this to Pence.  That doesn't look like leadership.

3) This is yet one more instance where he seems to focus on punishing Europe, our greatest allies, above all else.  No travel to the US from Europe for 30 days?  That's ridiculous.  There's already over 1,000 cases here. 

4) Whether he is blamed or not, this is tanking the economy, which was his one good talking point.  Sure he's not really to blame for that, but it's definitely hurting his re-election chances profoundly. 

He has to stop the spread this will result in better economic news later on . The europe move was bold and necessary they have a bigger issue there than here.

It would only have been "bold" if he had included the UK. There was no rational reason to exclude the UK and include a number of continental countries with far fewer cases, and it undermines the purpose since people from other European countries can just travel via the UK (a major airline hub).

[Lord Halifax]

3) This is yet one more instance where he seems to focus on punishing Europe, our greatest allies, above all else.  No travel to the US from Europe for 30 days?  That's ridiculous.  There's already over 1,000 cases here. 

^ This is the worst criticism in this thread --

 "The virus is already here. So no reason to keep out more potentially infected people. What difference does it make if 150 people die next month instead of 120? Not like the rate of infection makes a difference, when Italy hospitals are overwhelmed to the point of near-collapse. "

?

It's doubtful whether such small differences in the rate of infection matters at this point since we're clearly past the point where the US can avoid a major epidemic (and yes, 30 extra deaths are peanuts in a population of more than 320 mio.), but if he were to do it efficiently he shouldn't have exempted the UK, which clearly has lots of cases and is major airline hub. That undermines the whole point and reduces it to mere symbolism.

[Lord Halifax]

3) This is yet one more instance where he seems to focus on punishing Europe, our greatest allies, above all else.  No travel to the US from Europe for 30 days?  That's ridiculous.  There's already over 1,000 cases here.  

^ This is the worst criticism in this thread --

 "The virus is already here. So no reason to keep out more potentially infected people. What difference does it make if 150 people die next month instead of 120? Not like the rate of infection makes a difference, when Italy hospitals are overwhelmed to the point of near-collapse. "

?

It's doubtful whether such small differences in the rate of infection matters at this point since we're clearly past the point where the US can avoid a major epidemic (and yes, 30 extra deaths are peanuts in a population of more than 320 mio.), but if he were to do it efficiently he shouldn't have exempted the UK, which clearly has lots of cases and is major airline hub. That undermines the whole point and reduces it to mere symbolism.

1). On the bolded -- nope. If even one person dies, then that's a big deal.

2). You belittle the significance of 30 extra deaths in a country that has a population > 320 million. Right now, only 38 people have died from coronovirus in the United States. 38 people in a country with > 320 people. That stat hasn't made coronavirus any less of a big deal to you and others, right?

3). The reason he exempted UK is because of the Schengen Agreement, which UK didn't agree to (unlike the other European countries). The idea is that UK is better equipped to screen anyone coming in from other European countries. The possibility remains that they'll ban travel from UK, but there's a chance we can get by without it. Hence, you hold off the ban.  

4). Additionally, the UK is more important to our economy than the other European countries.

5). You say travel from Europe would create a small difference in the rate of infection. It's mathematics. The less people with the virus, the less likelihood of people getting infected. Of the 35 states with coronavirus outbreaks, 30 of them can trace the contact to someone in Europe. The less people with the virus, the less it spreads and the better our chances of containment.

1) It's completely meaningless to say it's a "big deal" if only one person dies, just think of how many tens of thousands are killed in traffic easy year and we don't ban cars just because of that. You have to take the economic and social consequences into consideration.

2) I do think the threat from Corona virus is exaggerated. It's not exactly the Black Death and simply isn't dangerous enough to warrant curtailing basic rights and liberties.

3) Holding off a UK ban makes the whole exercise pointless. It doesn't matter than they aren't in Schengen since you can get a connecting plane from a UK airport without entering UK territory.

4) That's BS. The EU is far more important to US economy than the UK, Germany alone is a lot more important than that little foggy island off the coast of France.