"Seriously?", indeed. Are you trying to mislead people into thinking the name signifies it being a provincial concern? I have trouble believing that you are actually so ignorant as to think so. So it seems more likely that you are trying to mislead people who might be ignorant on the matter.From wikipedia:
You might say “the New England Journal is joining the ranks of academic publications risking their reputations as non-partisan arbiters of good science in order to rumble in the political tarpits.” That’s a line from our 2006 editorial “New England Journal of Politics” describing how the NEJM had waded into a legal dispute over Merck’s painkiller Vioxx. The NEJM also appeared in these pages in 2007 for working to tank a diabetes drug and help Democrats in Congress to regulate treatment approvals more tightly.
The main points of criticism have centered on faulty tests from CDC, the rules about which labs can perform tests, and the criteria under which patients can be tested, which CDC updated last week. . . According to the sources, the problem began with the United States' process for developing a diagnostic test. . . On Feb. 12, CDC announced some of the tests provided labs with inconclusive results. The problem, which involved an ingredient in the test kit, had further slowed the United States' ability to test and confirm COVID-19 diagnoses, requiring most of the testing to be conducted at CDC's headquarters in Atlanta. . . Once CDC became aware of the issue, the agency decided to fix the diagnostic test instead of switching to the diagnostic tests being used by other countries—a move that drew criticism from experts. However, CDC said applying for an FDA authorization to use tests from other countries and then validating and manufacturing the test would have taken the agency longer than fixing the issues with the agency's already validated tests.
Regarding the missteps, Jeremy Konyndyk, a senior policy fellow at the Center for Global Development who oversaw the international response to Ebola under former President Barack Obama's administration, said, "They've simply lost time they can't make up. You can't get back six weeks of blindness. To the extent that there's someone to blame here, the blame is on poor, chaotic management from the White House and failure to acknowledge the big picture.
A Self-Inflicted CrisisOverregulation has played a dangerous role in America’s coronavirus outbreak. . . The FDA’s regulation of laboratory tests has been a longstanding concern. This includes moves to regulate LDTs, despite the existence of stringent alternative-regulatory and oversight mechanisms. In general, the FDA has exercised “enforcement discretion” with respect to LDTs. With coronavirus testing, the FDA’s abandonment of enforcement discretion may have proved deadly.
In my opinion, people are blaming Trump just to find a scapegoat......I just don't see this as the fault of a President. ...As far as strict government lockdowns, WHO is now advising against lockdowns as much as possible because it is causing very severe problems that some might say is actually worse or as worse as the coronavirus. What they're learning is that lockdowns are taking a heavy toll on the populace. But, Trump said that in April but liberals need to hear it from liberals before they believe anything.
Let's look at the history.1) [The Rupert Murdock owned] Wall Street Journal called it the New England Journal of Politics:
Seriously? I can do genetic fallacies too.
...so he is undoubtedly unfit for the job of protecting the country against the pandemic.
His many lies about it to the American public should by now have convinced the electorate and the polls reflect just that.
WHO's so-called new advice against lockdowns is not really all that new; they are just emphasizing that especially poor countries should rather not use strict lockdowns that might cause more harm than good to people who depend on their daily work to get food on the table. There are still prescriptions to guide countries accordingly, first and foremost that the virus is contained and not able to spread (before lockdowns are lifted).
If X then Y. I don't buy Y. If you said, "therefore Trump is very careless wrt the pandemic" then I would agree. However, if Biden were competent (and I don't think he's even halfway competent) then it would be a good reason to vote for Biden. But we live in an extremely important time where the chances of a major conflict breaking out are as high as 1985 and socialists are trying to get their hands on American democracy (they haven't been this close since 1933). Biden is in no condition to handle either of these issues.
Biden, with the kind of support personnel he has gathered around him, should be far bettter and safer and more trustworthy than the Trump fiasco. And the polls indicate a similar perception among the majority of Americans. Support for Trump has taken a dip since the start of the pandemic and has remained pretty low.
Collectively the Biden team is far better equipped than an autocratic and a loose cannon Trump.
Who was/is saying that he is incapable of executive orders? I was simply saying that Biden has gathered what appears to be a competent team and that there would likely be a consultative process that steers decision making at the highest level. That was in reaction to your earlier assertion that Biden is not capable to deal with the challenges.
Not to mention Trump willl be tweeting everyday how Biden is not able to have a press conference (will he be able to have one where he doesn't have to just bash Trump?). It's a real nightmare brewing.
Meh..USA already finds itself in a situation where they elected a narcissistic degenerate who might have cost them double (or more) lives to Covid. A new precedent has been set for the president. Adapt.
So, because we can expect Trump to remain a narcissistic scumbag, we should keep him in office?
Even minimum security prison would restrict Trump's access to Twitter, I would think. So put Trump where he belongs, and this problem is taken care of.