KISS...keep it simple stupid.

23 Jan 2023 06:55 #1 by homeagain
www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/0...vid-vaccine-strategy


FINALLY, A SIMPLE AND SENSIBLE solution to an endemic health issue....What a CONCEPT!

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

23 Jan 2023 18:30 #2 by Rick
Replied by Rick on topic KISS...keep it simple stupid.
Before they offer us a "solution". they should first offer an apology to the entire nation for their incompetence and corrupt practices.

The Food and Drug Administration has moved from an entirely taxpayer-funded entity to one increasingly funded by user fees paid by manufacturers that are being regulated. Today, close to 45% of its budget comes from these user fees that companies pay when they apply for approval of a medical device or drug.

How much money did they get from the whole Covid scam?

today.uconn.edu/2021/05/why-is-the-fda-f...ies-it-regulates-2/#

The woke mind virus is penetrating the firewalls of some of the world's smartest meat computers at a prodigious rate!

Elon Musk

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

24 Jan 2023 08:21 #3 by homeagain

Rick wrote: Before they offer us a "solution". they should first offer an apology to the entire nation for their incompetence and corrupt practices.

The Food and Drug Administration has moved from an entirely taxpayer-funded entity to one increasingly funded by user fees paid by manufacturers that are being regulated. Today, close to 45% of its budget comes from these user fees that companies pay when they apply for approval of a medical device or drug.

How much money did they get from the whole Covid scam?

today.uconn.edu/2021/05/why-is-the-fda-f...ies-it-regulates-2/#


THAT PERSON would be Trump....he did not want to disclose/define the problem/do due diligence in finding a solution.....he wanted,NO he DECIDED to keep it on the down low,so it would not fuck up his political aspirations, RE ELECTION.....then it became a VERY LARGE MONSTER and he could no longer
"lay low" and lie.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

25 Jan 2023 11:07 #4 by Rick
Replied by Rick on topic KISS...keep it simple stupid.
Your words and lies offend me, but I’ll let it slide this time.

The woke mind virus is penetrating the firewalls of some of the world's smartest meat computers at a prodigious rate!

Elon Musk

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

25 Jan 2023 11:25 - 25 Jan 2023 11:27 #5 by homeagain
www.cnn.com/2020/09/09/politics/bob-wood...ronavirus/index.html


In a series of interviews with Woodward, Trump revealed that he had a surprising level of detail about the threat of the virus earlier than previously known. “Pretty amazing,” Trump told Woodward, adding that the coronavirus was maybe five times “more deadly” than the flu.
President Donald Trump, flanked by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, left, and Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, right, speaks during a cabinet meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House in Washington, DC on Monday, Oct. 16, 2017.

'Dangerous' and 'unfit': Trump's former national security advisers say he has 'no moral compass' in new Woodward book

Trump’s admissions are in stark contrast to his frequent public comments at the time insisting that the virus was “going to disappear” and “all work out fine.”

The book, using Trump’s own words, depicts a President who has betrayed the public trust and the most fundamental responsibilities of his office. In “Rage,” Trump says the job of a president is “to keep our country safe.” But in early February, Trump told Woodward he knew how deadly the virus was, and in March, admitted he kept that knowledge hidden from the public.

“I wanted to always play it down,” Trump told Woodward on March 19, even as he had declared a national emergency over the virus days earlier. “I still like playing it down, because I don’t want to create a panic.”


SO SORRY U TRUSTED THIS EGOCENTRIC,LEADER....(I am ASTONISHED AT your naive nature)

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

25 Jan 2023 15:16 #6 by FredHayek
Would you have preferred telling Americans the truth and letting them panic and ruin the economy?

The president is there to hold our hand and tell us the only thing to fear is fear itself.

President Obama: Never underestimate Joe Biden's ability to f*** things up.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

26 Jan 2023 09:10 #7 by homeagain
I would PREFER/EXPECT integrity and a sense of the buck stops here.....MEANING HAVE A PLAN SAM AND LEAD.....LYING TO THE POPULOUS AND CAUSING THE MOST DEATHS ON THE GLOBE IS NOT A SWELL PLAN. Let me ask a pertinent question ,IF one of those statistics was YOUR DAUGHTER OR SON,
(when the truth was not out there)......what would be your reaction in knowing YOUR leader lied and was reluctant to allow the truth be told)?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

26 Jan 2023 13:31 #8 by FredHayek
You honestly think that more people died of Covid-19 in the United States than China?
And what did you think President Trump should have done to lower Covid-19 deaths? Shut down the borders, including food imports? Shut down grocery stores to prevent transmission? Shut down restaurants and bars nationally? You were willing to let those businesses fail because a disease was rampaging across the United States killing less than one percent of Americans?

Would you have wanted to ban travel between States and cities to lower the infection rate?

President Obama: Never underestimate Joe Biden's ability to f*** things up.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

27 Jan 2023 07:09 #9 by homeagain

homeagain wrote: I would PREFER/EXPECT integrity and a sense of the buck stops here.....MEANING HAVE A PLAN SAM AND LEAD.....LYING TO THE POPULOUS AND CAUSING THE MOST DEATHS ON THE GLOBE IS NOT A SWELL PLAN. Let me ask a pertinent question ,IF one of those statistics was YOUR DAUGHTER OR SON,
(when the truth was not out there)......what would be your reaction in knowing YOUR leader lied and was reluctant to allow the truth be told)?

[/b]

(I was in error about the global stats)


U did not answer the question ....MAKE IT PERSONAL,WHAT WOULD BE YOUR FEELINGS/REACTION?

CONCLUSIONS

We began this article by posing three questions: (1) Why do governments (and their leaders) fail to adequately address known vulnerabilities and credible warnings about escalating threats and hazards? (2) Why was the Trump Administration unable or unwilling to respond vigilantly to a long‐forecasted pandemic despite widespread awareness of the general threat and credible and conclusive advanced warning regarding the specific COVID‐19 outbreak? (3) Can concepts and frameworks derived from the literature on “strategic surprise” help explain preparedness and warning‐response failures in the health security domain?

To explore the first question, we deployed a tripartite framework based on our previous work on warning‐response failure (Parker et al., 2009; Parker & Stern, 2002, 2005), emphasizing a combination of psychological (cognitive and motivational bias), bureau‐organizational (organizational fragmentation, competition, and turf concerns), and agenda‐political factors (prioritization of attention and resources and competitive framing). This literature suggests that discernible patterns of denial, disorganization, and distraction, as well as bureaucratic conflict, and the politicization of threat assessment and policy measures go a long way in explaining historical warning‐response failures.

Regarding the second question, factors associated with these three perspectives shed considerable light on the dynamics that contributed to the Trump Administration's failure to proactively address the threat and effectively manage the pandemic and—by extension—to the comparatively high toll of lives lost in the US during that period. As suggested in the apt title of a recent paper by Platje et al. (2020), the COVID‐19 pandemic appears to have been “both an expected and unexpected event.” However, many of the critical challenges that vexed the Trump Administration's response were not only foreseeable but were, in fact, foreseen.

The empirical results from this study of the Trump Administration's response to the COVID‐19 pandemic, much like the ones reported from previous cases of strategic surprise and policy failure, such as 9/11 or the Hurricane Katrina response (Parker et al., 2009; Parker & Stern, 2002, 2005), suggest that leadership is a key underlying determinant in all three perspectives. Leaders, like their followers, are human and susceptible to the various forms of cognitive and motivational biases outlined above. Furthermore, leaders set the tone not only for their advisory groups and networks but to a large extent for the wider executive branch bureaucracies as well (George & Stern, 2002; Preston, 2001; Preston & 't Hart, 1999; Stern & Sundelius, 1997).

Malignant forms of bureaucratic politics flourish and organizational logjams persist when leaders (or their surrogates) fail to create a transparent interagency decision‐making process, cut through the red tape, or set constructive norms for policy discourse (Rosati, 2000). Donald Trump and his top officials failed to provide scientifically informed, normative leadership, resulting in fierce infighting between multiple power centers, blame‐shifting, ambiguity regarding who was in charge, and a delayed, disorganized response to the pandemic.

Finally, from an agenda‐political perspective, although others may be more or less skillful in securing access and making their cases for preferred policies, the buck stops in the Oval Office. The definitive duty for setting the political and policy agenda rests with the White House. When the executive initially suggests that the stock market and not public health is of the utmost importance and makes it clear that bad news is unwelcome, shifting priorities and rapidly responding and adjusting to new information becomes difficult. At the end of the day, presidents are responsible for (although not entirely in control of) the political agenda.

Responding to pandemics is challenging, and many countries struggled to manage the COVID‐19 crisis (Boin et al., 2021). It is also important to recognize that not all of the problems of the US response can be laid at the feet of President Trump. As we showed above, the CDC's initial testing failures resulted from institutional ills that were independent of the president, and the pandemic revealed dysfunction and institutional rot at the CDC and FDA that predated the Trump Administration (Gottlieb, 2021). However, despite favorable circumstances—sufficient early warning, substantial capacity, a venerable center for disease control and prevention, vast resources,
high‐quality laboratories, and world‐leading scientific expertise—the Trump Administration demonstrated incompetence in responding to and managing the SARS‐CoV‐2 outbreak.

The US, although it represents just 4% of the world's population, accounted for over 20% of all confirmed COVID‐19 cases and deaths worldwide that took place on Trump's watch (Johns Hopkins University, 2022). This outcome was not inevitable. With a timelier, focused, scientifically informed, and sustained whole‐of‐government response, it has been estimated that hundreds of thousands of COVID‐19 deaths could have been avoided (Redlener et al., 2020; Woolhandler et al., 2021). Ultimately, in the US system, as the commander‐in‐chief, presidents are responsible for the decisions the federal government makes or fails to make, the mobilization and coordination of the federal response to national crises, and setting and enforcing the proper priorities. In the final analysis, when it comes to assessing responsibility for the avoidable failures of the federal government's COVID‐19 performance, the evidence examined here indicates that, while not responsible for everything that went wrong, President Trump was a decisive factor behind the tragically sub‐optimal US pandemic response.

Regarding the third question, there are considerable similarities in the patterns underlying warning‐response failures in the military, homeland security, emergency management, and health security realms. While perhaps counter‐intuitive, this is not particularly surprising as the warning‐response framework applied in this paper departs from enduring and empirically well‐documented features of the human mind, organizations, and the political environment typical of crisis management in the US and other highly developed countries (OECD, 2015; Parker et al., 2009).

For this reason, a natural next step in this line of research would be to apply the framework systematically to a variety of other contingencies such as cyberattacks and information operations (Francois & Lin, 2021) in order to demonstrate further and delineate the scope—and limitations of applicability—pertaining to the approach and formulate propositions about the relative importance of the “cuts” (and the particular mechanisms identified within them) across issue areas and circumstances. In our view, there is an opportunity for mid‐range theory development based on the rigorous comparison of warning‐response failures in different policy domains.

Finally, because we are interested in a knowledge base that can contribute to the avoidance of the types of failures analyzed here, like others before us (Bovens & 't Hart, 2016; McConnell, 2011), we believe there is a need for more studies that diagnose both failure and success. Understanding failure remains essential, but there is more work to be done with medium‐n comparative case designs that study the dynamics of policy success compared with those of failure. The quest to enhance societal security demands we embrace the challenge of learning from crisis management successes and failures.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.126 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum
sponsors
© My Mountain Town (new)
Google+