Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

Read this morning that only 17% of Japanese adults think going forward with the Olympics is a good idea. 17%. The public is in some Covid restrictions and asking, "umm, if we aren't safe now how does bringing in people from 100s of countries happen safely?

Japane$e Olympic committee $ays "Of cour$e it i$ $afe!"


Edit, I suppose I should have used a Yen symbol?

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

I read somewhere that only 3% of the Japanese population is vaccinated. Going forward does not seem like a wise idea to me.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

The vaccine numbers make it clear the US is the place, now at least.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

137 days to turn the country from a fucking shithole to a world leader againt. Decent job for a guy that puts his suit pants on right.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

It's a bit more complex than that. Previous administration bungled containment initially. But really, was this ever going to be contained in a nation this size? No.

But as far as pushing aside FDA and other bureaucracies and getting vaccine makers to move quickly, prior admin deserves a lot of credit. Current admininstration deserves credit for grabbing that baton and pushing to make vaccines widely available by enhancing federal delivery mechanisms instead of allowing states to entirely control rollout, and by pushing aside bureaucracy when small issues involving side effects occurred. Biden could have stopped or slowed deliveries for long period when media started scaremongering about outlier situations like blood clots, etc., but he wisely weighed the costs/benefits and plowed ahead.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

I wonder, however, how the new cold war impacts us going forward. Niall Ferguson's view that China is not as attractive as they appear and we are more attractive than we appear is comforting, but is it true? And if it is true, will this new cyber/economic cold war inure to our benefit like the past one with Russia, or is it "winnable" by China?

https://finance.yahoo.com/video/chin...000900783.html

Here's Bremmer on why there will be no cold war. https://time.com/5920725/us-china-competition/ It's lucid, as he always is, but he compares the past cold war to the present one predicted by Ferguson and others. And these will be very different cold wars. He also sees interdependence as a force precluding conflict. One could just as easily see it as one inviting conflict, as it creates communication/data sharing channels and supply chains which can be more easily used by the US and China to fuck with each other economically and in terms of cyber attacks, both directly and indirectly.

But I would find it hysterical, and quite undeserved, if the global pivot off this pandemic was a strengthening/re-emergence of the US as sole real superpower on the planet. That'd definitely prove that the most important geopolitical metric on Earth is being the house least on fire on a block of them all aflame.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

What do you think the prior administration did to get vaccine makers to move quickly?

The vaccine makers prioritized the vaccine from day 1, when it comes to serving a multi-billion person market, government's role is really all about contracting, supply chains, and approvals. Do you think they shone on any of those issues? If so, why?

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

Damn man. Has anyone actually read Niall Ferguson recently. I thought one of the good sides of the pandemic was that he was out of sight.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

You ask some good questions, but I think you should know that Sebastian has NEVER BEEN WRONG when opining about Covid-related matters.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

There are parts of this country - like the Dakotas - that had a reasonable shot at avoiding this thing altogether had it not immediately become politicized. While it is sparser still, parts of Australia more or less did, aided by interior travel restrictions and distance. Similar restriction might have been unconstitutional here, but could have been tried had the elected GOP president decided to take it seriously instead of actively downplaying it. We will never know how many marginal lives were lost because of it.

Not sure about how substantive that was, but it certainly deserves credit for agreeing to buy a lot of vaccine.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

For an example of how the delivery would have been under Trump, look at DeSantis. I was able to get vaxed in NY months before my dad in FL. The systems for trying to get an appointment were night and day different. My dad couldn't get vaxed until feds took over and set up vax centers while DeSantis was getting his dick sucked by Publix .

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

The huge mistake made by the prior administration wasn't about policy. It was turning the government pandemic response into a front in the culture war. It was Trump's mistake, a function of his own schizophrenia about whether he wanted to run the government or foster grievances about it. Because he couldn't really control himself, he did both at different times. Whatever you think of the administration's policy, it was undoubtedly undercut by conservatives who railed against masks, virtue-signaled by superspreading, questioned the science, etc. If Trump had been able to resist his own impulses, maybe he could have gotten re-elected. He certainly cost lives, killed jobs and wasted money.

Was the virus ever going to be "contained"? That's the wrong question. It's like not studying for the bar exam, failing it, and then saying, well, was I ever going to get a perfect score?

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

The points you make are compelling, and I agree with them. But it is also a fact that Sebastian has never been wrong about matters related to Covid. I see your response as not necessarily being inconsistent with Sebastian’s original point, but to the extent it is, I remind you again that Sebastian has never been wrong when discussing Covid-related topics, and you are going to have to figure out how to deal with that fact on your own.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

What Sebby is trying to say is that the rest of us don't give enough credit to two-time loser, failed blogger and golf cheater Donald Trump.

Noted losers Adlai Stevenson and Thomas Dewey were the last two people to lose the popular vote twice. Renowned loser William Jennings Bryan did it three times in four elections! As a popular-vote loser, Trump is in pretty rare company.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

I've always suspected you of being a Sebby sock. So PLF is really just the fantasy life of a lonely ambulance chaser from Deer Hunter land. I'll bet you're even too fat to ride a bike.