Weinie said:Remius,
My condolences on the loss of your family member.
I am becoming increasingly concerned about the economic impact of this. Ascribing some sort of cosmic repercussions and feeling schadenfreude is inane. Whether the folks who attended the event were irresponsible or not is not your call. If that is your mantra, insert societal ill.........
I was an early proponent of distancing, based on advice from the medical experts, and complied with all restrictions. Looking at the mortality rates, I have come to the conclusion that the cure may well be worse than the disease.
Valid concerns, but not really pertinent to the absolute gong show that was allowing a crowd like that to assemble for the nomination announcement. The mechanisms of nomination did not demand that, nor did any economic imperative. Her nomination could have been made without the political theatrics of gathering a bunch of important people together at the White House. Instead, ego compelled a course of action that further threatens political and economic security.
There are myriad valid concerns about the economic impact of public health measures. The best way to minimize the impacts of the most intrusive measures (lockdowns, business closures, etc) would be to militantly advocate and enforce the least intrusive ones- universal mask wearing, physical distancing, widespread testing, etc. Particularly for the first two, political leadership have a key role to play in setting the example. The US has seen a manifest failure of leadership on this at the federal level right from the outset, with a significant portion of America mindlessly resistant to reasonable and important public health measures as a result.
The president has established and revels in a cult of personality. He has chosen to fail to leverage that to save lives and curb economic harm in a public health emergency.