Biden says he’d be willing to shut country down to stop coronavirus if scientists recommended it

Biden’s statement is singularly myopic and suggests an underlying weakness in his approach to acting a President. It suggests that he myopically sees eliminating the virus threat as the highest priority, one, framing the primary objective for the Government to the exclusion of every other one as if everything will be ok if only we eliminate the threat of the virus. But, things are a bit more complex than that.
Would not the better framing of the nation’s objective be, how do we as a country adapt to deal with the virus threat without shutting down and making the cure worse than the disease? What can be done to safely adapt and return to work, education, and social life while simultaneously mitigating the threat of the virus and continuing a search to eliminate it.
What if the virus becomes a permanent new reality, a constant that we must learn to deal with as best we can? What changes must be made to move on and thrive?
The US has long had detailed plans for strategically dealing with the threat of a deadly national pandemic. If we find a cure for the COVID, what have we learned about dealing with another pandemic agent, one perhaps even more virulent and dangerous? One, perhaps engineered to be even more deadly, persistent, aerosolized, biologically targeted and intentionally released with the intention to destroy the Country? Given the pace of technology development, particularly with DNA engineering, not only possible in highly sophisticated labs, but even those of the basement variety, the potential for bioweapons and bioterrorism is a possible risk that shapes the reality of our future. Again, what does that mean and what changes must be made to move on and thrive?
Biden’s statement is one dimensional and certainly not one that demonstrates understanding of the complex challenges we will face as we engage the future.
Then too, to suggest Biden would accept the judgement of scientists is a position where he abdicates his executive role in framing the Nation’s objectives and values, abdicating to the judgement of scientists. Is it accepted that scientists are equipped to decide what the Nation’s objectives and value system should be? Science makes no statement of what a country’s objectives or values should be. Scientists ask questions about the natural domain and provide likely answers. Those answers that can be considered in decision making, but do not make a statement of which choices are ethical or valued. For instance, nuclear weapons were developed by the work of scientists, but the decision to use or not use them is a question of national policy.
That the virus has become a threat is something that will shape our future in many ways. The challenge it presents is one that will require innovative, agile, adaptive thinking and the ability to guide diverse teams focused on addressing various aspects of the problems and challenges we face and then have the ability to guide in sifting through, synthesizing, and assess a broad range of factors to identify those elements that best fit achieving the overall objectives of the nation in the most efficient and effective way possible.
Does Biden seem capable of doing that?

 

If Trump had listened to experts from the beginning, we would NOT be in this crisis. If in months ahead the situation becomes worse and Biden is POTUS, I would hope and pray we are following the scientists, not the liar in chief that is in the oval office now.

 

Again, this is a scientific matter. Gather information from all sources, yes, but in the end you have to use the sources that have the most likelihood of knowing the truth. If I need to know if water is poisonous who should I ask? A Chemist in a laboratory or Donald Trump?

 

Typical conservative dodge, and a patent falsehood to boot. How is it not right on topic?

 

And the 175,000 dead are what? Actors?

Conservatives are getting ****ing silly, yet more indication that they have NOTHING to back up what they say. Hatred of minorities and others is not going to cure a fatal disease, no matter how much they double down on it.

 

What about cross dressing men?

To be clear-most are not gay.

 

Already comic when the supporters of Trump accuse the challenger of an absolutist act when their COVIDIOT Trump actually practices it.

Anyway ... unlike Trump, who sees himself as the best and all-knowing president and expert in all things ... there are also reasonable people who take the advice of real and actual professionals and experts in their actions.

 

The truth is shutting down the economy which may be good for the fight against covid would have innumerable unintended consequences and Biden's myopic statement that he'd shutdown the economy based on what "the scientists" tell him show he is a shallow thinker unable to grasp the big picture .

 

Are you willing to kill something like 1.5 million people to "save" the economy? Mind, the quotes are because the deaths of 1.5 million would have horrendous effects on the economy and everything else for a very long time to come.

 

How many people do you think have died in vehicle accidents? And why do you think vehicles are still allowed to operate given the death and horrific injuries they cause? Answer is our economy would collapse without vehicles so yes we accept the resulting death and carnage. Scrape up the bodies, clear the wreckage and everybody get going again.


CDC numbers

• Each year, 1.35 million people are killed on roadways around the world.4
• Every day, almost 3,700 people are killed globally in road traffic crashes involving cars, buses, motorcycles, bicycles, trucks, or pedestrians. More than half of those killed are pedestrians, motorcyclists, and cyclists.4
• Road traffic injuries are estimated to be the eighth leading cause of death globally for all age groups and the leading cause of death for children and young people 5–29 years of age. More people now die in road traffic crashes than from HIV/AIDS.4

 

Oh no, Biden admitted he'd listen to scientists! The horror! Seriously, though, what a nice change of attitude that would be in the White House. Less snake oil and more consistent, evidence-based action.

 

More precisely Biden said he'd do what scientists told him to do which means some conglomerate of so called scientists run the country from then on.
What Biden should have said was he'd listen to scientists and economist and sociologist and business leaders etc to come up with a well balanced response.

 

Yes, that would have been a better response. I take his response to essentially mean that. Compare that to the current White House resident who took a couple of superficial steps to look like he was doing something, but otherwise ignored the problem until it was biting him in the ass.

 

Unfortunately that's not what Biden said. He specifically said he'd do what scientists told him to do. No ifs ands or buts. Your wishful thinking aside it was pretty clear he meant exactly what he said.

 

More on this

"New York Times opinion columnist Bret Stephens warned on Monday that Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden created “a dangerous opening for Trump” by saying he would be willing to "listen to the scientists" and shut down the U.S. this winter."


https://www.foxnews.com/media/ny-times-bret-stephens-biden-trump-lockdowns

 

I still prefer a president willing to listen to scientists over one who only pays attention to the ones that tell him what he wants to hear. :shrug:

 

Yeah I'm sure Trump wanted to hear we needed to shutdown the economy when Covid began. He listened to those scientists and probably shouldn't have.

 

The timeline regarding Trump's words and actions, and when they matched up, is so muddled at this point that it's impossible to constructively argue over. We'll just have to agree to disagree. From my perspective, Trump doesn't act on any science that might make him look bad unless not doing so would immediately be worse. Biden and Harris appear less stubborn in that regard. Biden's response is an indicator of that.