Mitch Daniels gets it

Marvin the Martian

Hall of Famer
Sep 4, 2001
29,453
13,057
113
We have much more fundamental differences than this. I give up.
So you refuse to answer the question, can a lack of leadership happen from people not treating the virus as at all dangerous? You have mentioned that those that overreacted showed a lack of leadership. I have given you a couple chances to include the opposite and you refuse. I agree with all those who say we should have gone back to school earlier. I agree outdoors with some small distancing was ok. But for some reason you won't try to reach across with anything.

So you are right, we have much more fundamental differences. You are trying to push a political agenda, I want to find out what the heck went wrong and a lot did.
 

JamieDimonsBalls

All-American
Gold Member
Jun 28, 2015
7,688
4,908
113
Vitamin D was a fairly late discovery

We knew about it last summer actually.


Our testing program sucked for months

It still sucks. Perhaps everything is relative, but there are plenty of instances of inaccuracies based on anecdotal experience.

Had we done nothing, nothing at all, our numbers would have been much worse. After that is excluded the debate is how much can we mitigate at what cost. The economy is doing well. The vast majority of people who want jobs have them. Many sectors are booming enough inflation is getting to be a more serious concern. Aside from schools we have not suffered irreparable harm from the mitigation. I think schools may be the exception but I have always thought kids are far more resilient than we give them credit for. It may well turn out education levels bounce back next year.

No question if we operated without any restrictions, the death count and long-term disability related to COVID would have been higher.

But, it's impossible to truly compare scenarios, but global and national mental health are at their all time worst. That is indisputable and the long-term impact of this, combined with lack of access to physical health (e.g., gym closings, no PE class, etc.) remains to be seen.

And that's not even factoring in economic implications.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcmurtry66

Cortez88

All-Big Ten
Jan 7, 2017
3,521
4,095
113
So you refuse to answer the question, can a lack of leadership happen from people not treating the virus as at all dangerous? You have mentioned that those that overreacted showed a lack of leadership. I have given you a couple chances to include the opposite and you refuse. I agree with all those who say we should have gone back to school earlier. I agree outdoors with some small distancing was ok. But for some reason you won't try to reach across with anything.

So you are right, we have much more fundamental differences. You are trying to push a political agenda, I want to find out what the heck went wrong and a lot did.
He’s also disgusted by the virtue signaling of the goof ball wearing a mask outside, but has never said anything about the MAGA signaling of the goof ball picking a fight with the poor grocery store clerk who’s trying to get him to wear a mask.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bulk VanderHuge

Marvin the Martian

Hall of Famer
Sep 4, 2001
29,453
13,057
113
We knew about it last summer actually.
And it turned out to be wrong. I posted a link for Mc. Vitamin D was discovered because acutely ill tended to have low numbers. It turns out people with low vitamin D tend to be diabetic or obese or other COVID high-risk. So the Vitamin D was not really an issue, the diabetes that caused low vitamin D was.

Here is one article on it, though it fairly says other studies might change this. https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog...vent-covid-19-or-hasten-healing-2021040522310

Here is another https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/05/study-vitamin-d-wont-limit-risk-severity-covid-19
 

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
37,290
8,291
113
So you refuse to answer the question, can a lack of leadership happen from people not treating the virus as at all dangerous? You have mentioned that those that overreacted showed a lack of leadership. I have given you a couple chances to include the opposite and you refuse. I agree with all those who say we should have gone back to school earlier. I agree outdoors with some small distancing was ok. But for some reason you won't try to reach across with anything.

So you are right, we have much more fundamental differences. You are trying to push a political agenda, I want to find out what the heck went wrong and a lot did.
Your comment that Trump TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY downplayed the virus is TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY B.S. He made a big show of the USNS Comfort and Mercy, the Javits Center, other field hospitals, and the ventilator production. Almost all of that was an overreaction and he talked about all of it for weeks and weeks. It heightened the country’s state of anxiety.

This thread is not about who made bad calls. If you want to litigate that for the umpteenth time, I ain’t playing. Been there done that. My point is about how leaders apply risk issues to decisions. Goat mentioned that the objective was to flatten the curve. People indeed said that. But actions of some was to take us to zero risk. I think that was a mistake. It wasn’t political either. Both Republicans and Democrats were all over the place on risk tolerance.
 

Marvin the Martian

Hall of Famer
Sep 4, 2001
29,453
13,057
113
Your comment that Trump TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY downplayed the virus is TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY B.S. He made a big show of the USNS Comfort and Mercy, the Javits Center, other field hospitals, and the ventilator production. Almost all of that was an overreaction and he talked about all of it for weeks and weeks. It heightened the country’s state of anxiety.

This thread is not about who made bad calls. If you want to litigate that for the umpteenth time, I ain’t playing. Been there done that. My point is about how leaders apply risk issues to decisions. Goat mentioned that the objective was to flatten the curve. People indeed said that. But actions of some was to take us to zero risk. I think that was a mistake. It wasn’t political either. Both Republicans and Democrats were all over the place on risk tolerance.
The thread is about leadership. So far you STILL refuse to admit it is bad leadership to downplay COVID. Why is that so hard that you are physically incapable of doing that, you still have not admitted it was theoretically possible to downplay it let alone that it happened.

To avoid the last dozen posts was admit that bad leadership includes downplaying as well as overplaying. Why you cannot do so requires more psychological expertise than I have, or than humanity has

Some leaders over stressed the dangers, some under, and the result was crap. If anyone besides CO disagrees with that assessment I would love to hear it.
 

UncleMark

Hall of Famer
Sep 1, 2001
22,359
20,630
113
But, it's impossible to truly compare scenarios, but global and national mental health are at their all time worst. That is indisputable and the long-term impact of this, combined with lack of access to physical health (e.g., gym closings, no PE class, etc.) remains to be seen.

Buncha pussies. They need to suck it up. Fvck their Feelz.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IU_Hickory

i'vegotwinners

Hall of Famer
Dec 1, 2006
11,335
3,696
113
Your comment that Trump TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY downplayed the virus is TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY B.S. He made a big show of the USNS Comfort and Mercy, the Javits Center, other field hospitals, and the ventilator production. Almost all of that was an overreaction and he talked about all of it for weeks and weeks. It heightened the country’s state of anxiety.

This thread is not about who made bad calls. If you want to litigate that for the umpteenth time, I ain’t playing. Been there done that. My point is about how leaders apply risk issues to decisions. Goat mentioned that the objective was to flatten the curve. People indeed said that. But actions of some was to take us to zero risk. I think that was a mistake. It wasn’t political either. Both Republicans and Democrats were all over the place on risk tolerance.
The thread is about leadership. So far you STILL refuse to admit it is bad leadership to downplay COVID. Why is that so hard that you are physically incapable of doing that, you still have not admitted it was theoretically possible to downplay it let alone that it happened.

To avoid the last dozen posts was admit that bad leadership includes downplaying as well as overplaying. Why you cannot do so requires more psychological expertise than I have, or than humanity has

Some leaders over stressed the dangers, some under, and the result was crap. If anyone besides CO disagrees with that assessment I would love to hear it.

both you guys could be great posters if you were so inclined, but your homage to party keeps both of you from being so.

not that you both don't make good points sometimes, but you can't be a party tool and a good poster, since both parties are total crap, and the problem itself rather than any solution.

just as responsibility often requires parents to overprotect their kids, similar dynamics pushed govts to error on the safe side.

there was no manual for how this should have been handled.

and when Wall St owns the govt on both sides of the aisle, it's literally impossible for govt to perform well in any crisis for any entity other than Wall St, and only for the immediate short term even there.

that said, the pandemic only magnified many other ills the country suffers, such as wealth inequality, the need for universal healthcare, the desperate need to recoup our manufacturing/supply chain base, and the insanity and criminality of perverting the Fed to serve the criminal banks and share value, rather than national interests.

that said, how we react to the lessons learned is all we can reach for now.

my prediction is we won't react well or even sanely to anything we've learned, and homage to party, either total disaster party, is why.
 

Marvin the Martian

Hall of Famer
Sep 4, 2001
29,453
13,057
113
both you guys could be great posters if you were so inclined, but your homage to party keeps both of you from being so.
I am curious where in this thread I have paid any homage to democrats. I said Cuomo screwed up. I said Holcomb and DeWine largely did well.

Some Ds did well, some did poor. Same for Rs. There was a simple message, anything but jam packed outdoor events are largely safe and schools were largely safe and inside people should wear masks and socially distance. A lot of people on both sides ignored half of those truisms. That includes our elected officials
 

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
57,401
30,562
113
Margaritaville
The thread is about leadership. So far you STILL refuse to admit it is bad leadership to downplay COVID. Why is that so hard that you are physically incapable of doing that, you still have not admitted it was theoretically possible to downplay it let alone that it happened.

To avoid the last dozen posts was admit that bad leadership includes downplaying as well as overplaying. Why you cannot do so requires more psychological expertise than I have, or than humanity has

Some leaders over stressed the dangers, some under, and the result was crap. If anyone besides CO disagrees with that assessment I would love to hear it.
The fact that he is refusing to address the central point of your argument is a good example of why you are wasting your time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IU_Hickory

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
37,290
8,291
113
The fact that he is refusing to address the central point of your argument is a good example of why you are wasting your time.
That’s really funny. Marv doesn’t have a “central point” other than wanting to figure out who Mitch was talking about. He asked that question twice and my response was that Mitch wasn’t talking about anybody, he is talking about the idea of zero risk and whether moving towards zero risk is good leadership. I’m not going to engage marv on a “who Mitch was talking about” discussion. Period. All that leads to is a dumbassed argument.
 

Marvin the Martian

Hall of Famer
Sep 4, 2001
29,453
13,057
113
That’s really funny. Marv doesn’t have a “central point” other than wanting to figure out who Mitch was talking about. He asked that question twice and my response was that Mitch wasn’t talking about anybody, he is talking about the idea of zero risk and whether moving towards zero risk is good leadership. I’m not going to engage marv on a “who Mitch was talking about” discussion. Period. All that leads to is a dumbassed argument.

Again, refusing to say ignoring COVID was also bad leadership. Not who, simply was ignoring it bad leadership. You cannot do that simple thing.

Maybe you just define bad leadership as disagreeing with you.
 

TommyCracker

Hall of Famer
Mar 18, 2004
13,656
10,100
113
Again, refusing to say ignoring COVID was also bad leadership. Not who, simply was ignoring it bad leadership. You cannot do that simple thing.

Maybe you just define bad leadership as disagreeing with you.
Downplaying it was compete incompetence, gross negligence and downright moronic.

Don't forget we got it last and watched it ravish through the middle east and then shut down Europe weeks before we had a case.

The stock market started dive bombing right after valentine's day. They knew it wasn't 'a harmless flu that was going to go away'.

When we got our first cases the message was 'it's 15 going down to zero'.

There are many things you can call our initial federal reaction, leadership isn't one of them unless you are being sarcastic.
 

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
37,290
8,291
113
Again, refusing to say ignoring COVID was also bad leadership. Not who, simply was ignoring it bad leadership. You cannot do that simple thing.

Maybe you just define bad leadership as disagreeing with you.
You are really playing small ball with this nonsense. I posted a portion of Mitch Daniels’ remarks about how a leader should deal with risk when making decisions. I said I agree with him. Your talking about your “simple thing” is nothing. I’d like to enter a discussion about risk taking, decisions, public safety, government paternalism and more. We could even get into a discussion about the “if it saves just one life” parameter which some leaders employ. .Should a government leader look at risk taking differently than an entrepreneur? Is “maximum possible protection” a good basis for a decision? All interesting stuff at least to me. But nooooooo. I can’t get you off of Trump no matter how hard I try.

Buh bye.
 

Marvin the Martian

Hall of Famer
Sep 4, 2001
29,453
13,057
113
You are really playing small ball with this nonsense. I posted a portion of Mitch Daniels’ remarks about how a leader should deal with risk when making decisions. I said I agree with him. Your talking about your “simple thing” is nothing. I’d like to enter a discussion about risk taking, decisions, public safety, government paternalism and more. We could even get into a discussion about the “if it saves just one life” parameter which some leaders employ. .Should a government leader look at risk taking differently than an entrepreneur? Is “maximum possible protection” a good basis for a decision? All interesting stuff at least to me. But nooooooo. I can’t get you off of Trump no matter how hard I try.

Buh bye.
What has happened to your brain. I assume you once had one. I am pointing out that you and Mitch only refer to one side of the equation, people who didn't accept enough risk and those people aren't leaders. I am trying to suggest that ignoring risk entirely isn't leadership. For reasons unknown to humanity you only believe leaders charge ahead taking needless risks because, well who knows why.

Leaders, REAL LEADERS, try to do what they need AND reduce risks. The great military generals don't just throw away lives because they can, they try to take their objective AND do so at the least cost. But for some reason you won't engage in that part of it.

Of course I wanted to know who you thought he was speaking of, this is the real world. But where is that line between too much risk and not enough? You mentioned Cuomo, at no point have I defended Cuomo in this discussion.

Were mask mandates too much risk, not enough risk? Was social distancing too much risk, not enough risk? It isn't hard, where do you or Mitch think the line is? Outside, sure, that would prove OK. But where else?

But you wanted to make sure at no point anyone could point anywhere close to a Republican and especially your God you refused to point any fingers at the idea accepting too little risk was a lack of leadership. You only want Ds to be lacking leadership, that is painfully clear. Yes, many Ds screwed up. I've said that. But plenty of Rs did too. You ain't said anything close to that.

The smartest thing you have posted is Buh bye. Whatever it is you think Biden has, go get checked out for it. Afterward, if you ever want a SERIOUS discussion, come back and let me know the doc has treated you.
 

Spartans9312

Senior
Nov 11, 2004
2,883
1,889
113
So you refuse to answer the question, can a lack of leadership happen from people not treating the virus as at all dangerous? You have mentioned that those that overreacted showed a lack of leadership. I have given you a couple chances to include the opposite and you refuse. I agree with all those who say we should have gone back to school earlier. I agree outdoors with some small distancing was ok. But for some reason you won't try to reach across with anything.

So you are right, we have much more fundamental differences. You are trying to push a political agenda, I want to find out what the heck went wrong and a lot did.

Idiots in leadership positions are the reason schools were so poorly handled.
The claim that Florida has been "hiding" cases has been debunked.
 
  • Like
Reactions: INRanger27

IU_Hickory

Senior
Aug 29, 2017
2,682
2,427
113
Downplaying it was compete incompetence, gross negligence and downright moronic.

Don't forget we got it last and watched it ravish through the middle east and then shut down Europe weeks before we had a case.

The stock market started dive bombing right after valentine's day. They knew it wasn't 'a harmless flu that was going to go away'.

When we got our first cases the message was 'it's 15 going down to zero'.

There are many things you can call our initial federal reaction, leadership isn't one of them unless you are being sarcastic.

To be fair, we probably had it before we knew it. Were we really last or just got to testing for it last?
 

IU_Hickory

Senior
Aug 29, 2017
2,682
2,427
113
giphy.gif


Real leaders have courage and take on problems without fear of pesky risks
 

Marvin the Martian

Hall of Famer
Sep 4, 2001
29,453
13,057
113

Idiots in leadership positions are the reason schools were so poorly handled.
The claim that Florida has been "hiding" cases has been debunked.

I don't think I mentioned Florida. Someone else may have.

Right now, this moment, I don't think we have any way of knowing which states "won" COVID. We know Michigan lost and lost hard. But there needs to be a real analysis of deaths and hospitalizations. I've been looking for good hospitalization comparisons. This link below isn't it, but it is interesting in its own right. Back in April, the number of hospitalizations of people 30-59 by state. Michigan had almost double the number of California. Florida had over double. I'm not saying that means anything about their governor, I'm actually saying we don't know because we lack all the data. But in that chart is a comparison to the month before, most states had more people that age in the hospital in April than in March and that is even with a whole lot of vaccinations in that time. Maine had a 192% increase in hospitalizations in that month, how was that even possible?


Some notes at the beginning of that link:

  • The number of people ages 30 through 59 hospitalized with COVID-19 rose to 15,680, from 12,087, in just a month.
  • The COVID-19 hospitalization count for people ages 60 and older increased 3.1%.
  • Yet the COVID-19 hospitalization count for people under 30 rose 25%, to 3,346.
 

Spartans9312

Senior
Nov 11, 2004
2,883
1,889
113
I don't think I mentioned Florida. Someone else may have.

Right now, this moment, I don't think we have any way of knowing which states "won" COVID. We know Michigan lost and lost hard. But there needs to be a real analysis of deaths and hospitalizations. I've been looking for good hospitalization comparisons. This link below isn't it, but it is interesting in its own right. Back in April, the number of hospitalizations of people 30-59 by state. Michigan had almost double the number of California. Florida had over double. I'm not saying that means anything about their governor, I'm actually saying we don't know because we lack all the data. But in that chart is a comparison to the month before, most states had more people that age in the hospital in April than in March and that is even with a whole lot of vaccinations in that time. Maine had a 192% increase in hospitalizations in that month, how was that even possible?


Some notes at the beginning of that link:

  • The number of people ages 30 through 59 hospitalized with COVID-19 rose to 15,680, from 12,087, in just a month.
  • The COVID-19 hospitalization count for people ages 60 and older increased 3.1%.
  • Yet the COVID-19 hospitalization count for people under 30 rose 25%, to 3,346.

I was responding to your statement about being slow on school issues. Weingarten has been extremely misleading all along. She is willing to argue that schools can't reopen because they lack soap after more than $100 billion in spending. She's also willing to argue conspiracies too.
 

Marvin the Martian

Hall of Famer
Sep 4, 2001
29,453
13,057
113

I was responding to your statement about being slow on school issues. Weingarten has been extremely misleading all along. She is willing to argue that schools can't reopen because they lack soap after more than $100 billion in spending. She's also willing to argue conspiracies too.
No argument from me that schools should have been open but with online learning for kids with severe health conditions.
 

Spartans9312

Senior
Nov 11, 2004
2,883
1,889
113
No argument from me that schools should have been open but with online learning for kids with severe health conditions.
We have been very lucky with the leadership and decision making of our local school board. At no point were the schools closed to in-person learning. Parents did have an option to do remote learning...I know of no one that chose that option.
Everyone's tired from the pandemic. I applaud parents who had to take over their kids' education. Teachers were able to work in an environment that's at a lower risk for Covid than some retail jobs. The teachers union failed a lot of students during this past year or so.
 

NPT

Moderator
Moderator
Aug 28, 2001
12,647
1,548
113
A comment about ”leaders” from his address to PU grads

Sometimes they let what might be termed the mad pursuit of zero, in this case zero risk of anyone contracting the virus, block out other competing concerns, like the protection of mental health, the educational needs of small children, or the survival of small businesses. Pursuing one goal to the utter exclusion of all others is not to make a choice but to run from it. It’s not leadership; it’s abdication. I feel confident your Purdue preparation won’t let you fall prey to it.​

But there’s a companion quality you’ll need to be the leaders you can be. That’s the willingness to take risks. Not reckless ones, but the risks that still remain after all the evidence has been considered.​
The COVID Derangement Syndrome and Covidocracy that sprung up last year shows not only how fragile effective leadership is, but how bad we are at producing leaders. This is an asymmetrical issue. Bad leadership hit us from all quarters, including government, business, media, and entertainment. I’ll grant that in the beginning we were justifiably concerned about unknowns, but as the year wore on, when we knew more about the virus, our leaders continued with their “emergency” orders and did enormous damage to the country. kids still aren’t in school. The politicizing of it piled on. I’d like to think we learned important lessons about risks and effective leadership. But I don’t think so.
I think most of our leaders' top priority is NOT what is good for the public but what is good for them politically. We take risk every day so zero risk should never be a consideration in most cases. Humans are not good at assessing risk. They'll be concerned about something and let it affect their life when the risk is about the same chance as winning the lottery. Of course early on in something like COVID good leaders should err on the conservative side and try to limit risks until more is known. However, doing nothing could be called good leadership sometimes.
 

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
37,290
8,291
113
I think most of our leaders' top priority is NOT what is good for the public but what is good for them politically. We take risk every day so zero risk should never be a consideration in most cases. Humans are not good at assessing risk. They'll be concerned about something and let it affect their life when the risk is about the same chance as winning the lottery. Of course early on in something like COVID good leaders should err on the conservative side and try to limit risks until more is known. However, doing nothing could be called good leadership sometimes.
Your last sentence needs to be emphasized. Many confuse leadership with talking about something and/or doing something. It takes a strong leader to resist the pressure to always say or do something.
 

Stuffshot

All-American
Feb 20, 2008
8,692
3,828
113
Your last sentence needs to be emphasized. Many confuse leadership with talking about something and/or doing something. It takes a strong leader to resist the pressure to always say or do something.
My biggest concern about the current crop of "leaders" and members of Congress is an increasing refusal to accept majority rule.

Examples include candidates who say, before an election, that they will not accept the results of the election unless they win and say, after the election that there was rampant fraud even when they lack proof and don't even try to find any.

And today, the minority party is claiming victory even though the majority party received 61 % of the votes cast. The filibuster rules have no other purpose but to prevent a government based on majority rule, and many of our country's most prominent "leaders" daily demonstrate that they don't want majority rule.
 

UncleMark

Hall of Famer
Sep 1, 2001
22,359
20,630
113
My biggest concern about the current crop of "leaders" and members of Congress is an increasing refusal to accept majority rule.

Examples include candidates who say, before an election, that they will not accept the results of the election unless they win and say, after the election that there was rampant fraud even when they lack proof and don't even try to find any.

And today, the minority party is claiming victory even though the majority party received 61 % of the votes cast. The filibuster rules have no other purpose but to prevent a government based on majority rule, and many of our country's most prominent "leaders" daily demonstrate that they don't want majority rule.

You can look forward to a response about the "tyranny of the majority".
 

Stuffshot

All-American
Feb 20, 2008
8,692
3,828
113
You can look forward to a response about the "tyranny of the majority".
That is the inevitable reply of weakminded losers who can't muster a majority.

As Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist No. 22, "If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority...[the government's] situation must always savor of weakness, sometimes border upon anarchy."


The Trumpers should listen to Hamilton. After all, he had plenty of extramarital affairs (just like Trump) and, when he got into a physical dispute with Aaron Burr, he got his ass whipped even more effectively than the way Rand Paul got his ass whipped by his neighbor. (Rand Paul is, like, 5'7", so even Republicans should question his judgment about allowing a dispute with a big neighbor to escalate this much -- but they won't.)
 

Latest posts