Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Yavin4

(35,357 posts)
Mon Jul 13, 2020, 06:34 PM Jul 2020

This is what should have happened back in March with covid-19

1. The federal govt should have announced to the states that each state has to shut down for 3 months. Those that do not comply will lose federal funding and their citizens would not be able to travel to other states. There's precedence for this when the govt raised the drinking age to 21. Those states that did not comply lost highway funds.

2. The govt should have issued $2500 a month to all citizens during this period. People with incomes by the end of the year over $90,000 would be required to pay back that $2500 in taxes.

3. There should have payroll protection for businesses and employees.

4. The govt should have divided the country into 8 zones. Each zone would be overseen by a health care administrator. These adminstrators would be overseen by the NIH or the CDC.

5. The healthcare administrator would be in charge of testing in their zone. The goal should be getting 25% of the population tested every day. The 25% goal would have taken some time to reach, but we would be nearing it by now.

6. At the end of the 3 mos., those states that bent the curve would be allowed to open provisionally using the CDC's re-opening guidelines.

7. All states would be required to pass mandatory mask laws. Those that do not lose federal funding.

If we had done the above and the testing shows that new cases were on the decline, we could have opened up fully by now or at least in the fall.





12 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Laelth

(32,017 posts)
1. I like the plan.
Mon Jul 13, 2020, 06:41 PM
Jul 2020

It would take an act of Congress to restrict highway funds on the basis of non-compliance with Federal guidelines. As such, we might actually be able to implement such a plan in late January 2021.

-Laelth

gratuitous

(82,849 posts)
2. That would have (and still would) require leadership, which we ain't got
Mon Jul 13, 2020, 06:52 PM
Jul 2020

A national crisis calls for a national response, but Republicans don't see the country as a "we're all in this together" proposition anymore. There's them and theirs, and the rest of y'all can get fucked. Presented with even the most modest versions of these very good suggestions, Republicans fretted about everything. The deficit will take off! Some people might collect more money just sitting at home than they do on their low-wage jobs, and what if they get used to having more money? We need our haircuts! Masks are a sign of weakness and totatititarian (Trump spelling) government! And on and on.

Aided and abetted by their reliable allies, the Russian botfarms, Republicans would have torpedoed every proposal. It would have taken leadership of the kind we don't have to ignore the shrill cries of the death cult, communicate openly and honestly with the people, and set out timelines and rigorous bench marks so that everyone could follow along, and know what to expect. Some guaranteed basic income would keep poor families and small businesses afloat, businesses that could adapt would adapt, and the ongoing process would be adjusted for success or failure in ways that everyone could see.

Pobeka

(4,999 posts)
3. March was too late and the experts knew it. Shutdown for 6 weeks starting Feb 15.
Mon Jul 13, 2020, 07:13 PM
Jul 2020

Half the shutdown time, just as effective by getting on top of it. Serious quarantine/isolation procedures for those traveling into the USA, not the third-rate stuff that occurred.

Other than that I would add civil fines and possibly jail for those refusing to mask up or social distance.

We could have starved this virus of hosts, it would have been soooooo much cheaper in both money, lives and impacted health of hundreds of thousands.

And you know what? If Trump had done that, he'd have been called a hero, his re-election would have been a slam-dunk.

brush

(53,471 posts)
5. Good stuff. Shows the weaknesses of our system as we operated as 50 separate countries instead...
Mon Jul 13, 2020, 07:25 PM
Jul 2020

of one nation with an overall national policy. The blame of course goes to the orange turd who is incapable of running a one-pump gas station efficiently.

The European nations, Asian countries, Australia, New Zealand, Vietnam all operated as one nation with one national policy and they've all beaten the virus and here we are starting over again.

Thanks, Stupid (you know who).

ProfessorGAC

(64,421 posts)
6. Agreed, Except That #5 Seems Unrealistic
Mon Jul 13, 2020, 08:35 PM
Jul 2020

25% of the population per day?
Are there enough qualified analytical folks to run >80 million tests per day.
DPA probably could have ramped up reagent & swab production rapidly, but I don't know that the instrumentation infrastructure & skilled analytical staffing exist.
25% seems too high. But, with a number that meets the resource availability, I'd agree totally with your plan.

Yavin4

(35,357 posts)
7. Set the bar high and build out the infrastructure to support it.
Mon Jul 13, 2020, 08:41 PM
Jul 2020

If you don't set a benchmark or set it too low, then you don't have an incentive to build out the physical and human infrastucture to support the testing regime.

Also, you can create a lot of jobs for people along the way.

ProfessorGAC

(64,421 posts)
11. Not A Job For Just Anybody
Mon Jul 13, 2020, 09:01 PM
Jul 2020

As I understand it, there's significant sample prep involved and spectroscopy (fluorimetry?).
In labs internal to a manufacturing site, even methods in Fourier Transform Infrared spectroscopy took a couple weeks of moderate training, and those are automated methods with look up tables to do the quantitation.
And in those cases, one had 200 grams is sample and needed about 1g. A suspect result could be run 4 more times, and 97.5% of the sample would be left.
And those labs were loaded with people with a college degree & a minimum number of science hours, or an AA in some science. These weren't folks who were delivering pizza the week before.
Yes, the jobs would be plentiful, but in 4 months, I still don't think you'd find enough people to have them trained for this size sample load.
Especially given the criticality of verifiable results.
Besides, given a 4 to 14 day incubation period, 10% would still have everyone tested every 10 days.
We could do the math around the spread impact of only every 10 days, but even 350 million tests per day doesn't bring spread to zero.
Goals that can't be achieved aren't goals. They're a wish list.

Yavin4

(35,357 posts)
12. Okay. Fine. Set the number of tests per day to a more attainable goal.
Mon Jul 13, 2020, 09:26 PM
Jul 2020

Whatever number you want, but it has to be representative of the spread of the virus.

Build a process of training folks for this goal. Mobilize the talent and train them.

Do whatever we have to do to get an accurate and complete testing process in place.

soothsayer

(38,601 posts)
8. I actually wish the whole world would have gotten together to battle it
Mon Jul 13, 2020, 08:43 PM
Jul 2020

Keep everyone at home. Somehow pause the global markets since they’re such a distraction. Kill it dead.

 

Trek4Eva

(22 posts)
9. Sorry but this sounds like planning and unless it's a scheme to enrich himself this caked up clown
Mon Jul 13, 2020, 08:46 PM
Jul 2020

is not interested.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»This is what should have ...