Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Acknowledging Congressional Demands, Trump Says WH Ready To Spend More On Coronavirus
Acknowledging Congressional Demands, Trump Says WH Ready To Spend More On Coronavirus
President Donald Trump said Wednesday that he was ready to acquiesce to congressional demands and use billions more to fight coronavirus than he had originally requested for the effort.
The White House on Monday asked for $2.5 billion to fight the virus — half of which would have been re-directed from other, already-allocated sources like a fund to fight the Ebola virus.
After angry legislators said the White House wasn’t taking the coronavirus threat seriously enough, Trump, flanked at a press conference by members of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, seemed to acknowledge that he’d lowballed the first ask.
“We’ll take it. If they want to give more, we’ll do more,” he said of Congress. “We’re going to spend whatever is appropriate. Hopefully we’re not going to have to spend so much because we really think we’ve done a great job in keeping it down to a minimum.”
He added: “Some Republicans would like us to get four [billion] and some Democrats would like us to get eight-and-a-half. We’ll be satisfied whatever it is.”
Now that Pence has been set up as the scapegoat, Don's caviler attitude towards how much money is appropriated makes sense..........for him. And that's all that matters to the Narcissist-in-Chief.He added: “Some Republicans would like us to get four [billion] and some Democrats would like us to get eight-and-a-half. We’ll be satisfied whatever it is.”
Is the country more prepared or less prepared by virtue of Trump's under funding of agencies who respond to health threats and his firing of personnel whose job it is to coordinate the country's response?Are you too much of a Trumper to understand that as a country with excellent medical facilities the US would score highly on that kind of rating.............without taking in to account Trump's dismantling of the government's organizational structure set up to deal with a pandemic? We both already know the answer so I don't need to wait.
Yeah. More importantly, had the doofus read the report - which he clearly did not - he'd be aware that research for the index was done in 2018. That means, the last reporting data to be incorporated would be from 2017. That was before Trump decapitated the pandemic preparedness infrastructure and defunded the CDC's international preparedness unit into virtual non-existence.
Actually I did drill down to that level Assumer-in-Chief, although of course i did not read the entire 320+ pages. Naturally you did before accusing others of not doing so I am sure. ::eyeroll::
You sling baseless assumptions and ad hominems in a weak attempt at argument, then claim others are stupid. Lol. It's rather pathetic.
Op states this was done by Trump in Spring 2018.
Report published October 2019.
So, we are assuming that a report based entirely on open source data didn't incorporate this rather large development, despite having over a year to rework the results for the United States by running their ~140 question model again with the new information; and instead went right ahead and published their report showing the US at the top of the list in terms of preparedness, such preparedness being the very subject of the report. I call bullshit. Foul, rank, piled-a-mile-high bullshit.
If you can provide facts to back up your apparent supposition that the publishers of this report didn't incorporate this development, despite having nearly a year to do so and their clearly stating that their index is derived complety from open source information. ("The GHS Index relies entirely on open-source information: data that a country has published on its own or has reported to or been reported by an international entity") provide those facts, else take your imperious, baseless garbage elsewhere.
BTW, you may want to dispense with the ad hominems you seem to love so much. They are the refuge of people without facts on their side and think a bit too much of themselves, or go right ahead and bluster on if you like. I see it for what it is so that shit won't have the intended effect on me.
My point stands and ya know why? You offered nothing in the way of facts to refute it. A link to the report and ad hominems won't cut it.
Lame attempt.
Go fish.
Ah, you did "drill down to that level", that's nice to hear. But then, you ask me how I know Trump's decapitation of the U.S. Rapid Response Planning capabilities was not incorporated in the report?
Glad you asked: Says the report on "Emergency preparedness and response planning" score: 100. (P. 303)
But, it's sure good to know you did "drill down to that level", but, as I have said before, whatever you believe you understand about any matter more complex than binding shoe laces is at least hopelessly undercomplex, and most likely seriously wrong.
And now, dummy, you are joining the crowd of brain-dead, integrity-challenged Trump sycophants in my ignore dungeon. Have a good life!
And nothing on your vaunted page 303 says anything about the age of the data, which YOU established as 2017, dumbfuck.
What it does do is show the scores of various categories and you now again in your role of Assumer-In-Chief, suppose that a high score means the data is not current. Maybe in your world of utter ignorance and stupidity that is actual proof, but I got some news for ya, dumbass, it isn't proof. Not even a little bit. You know what proof would be. "Data cited is from 2017" or some such thing. Without that, which you clearly do not have, or you would have posted it, you are a lying piece of shit.
Here's your own 'source', moron, which does not in any way, shape or form back up your claim that the data utilized is not current. I understand now that you are a bullheaded moron that simply cannot process data that contradicts your beliefs, but it is what it is.
Repeatedly you point at this or that to establish a point, but don't actually cite what supports what you say and that is the case here. I would find that odd if I didn't recognize it as a common tactic of BB charlatans such as yourself that are 99% puffery and 1% plain stupid.
You have established yourself as a thin-skinned buffoon that cannot process simple information and hides behind a veil of imperiousness through the use of ad hominems when called out.
YOU presented false suppositions without basis. YOU, when asked to back them up with facts provided noise but no proof. YOU continue to sling ad hominems instead of facts, as you have none. And then YOU accuse others, who have actually posted facts, of lacking integrity.
Go fuck yourself, dipshit. You can't handle rational discourse and now run to the ignore button, as you've been handed your ass on a plate. lol. You're not the first and likely won't be the last self-aggrandizing buffoon that doesn't like their facade being stripped away.
Fear mongering helps nothing.U.S. isn’t ready to detect stealth coronavirus spread
U.S. isn’t ready to detect stealth coronavirus spread
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention isn’t yet ready to detect whether the coronavirus is spreading across the country.
Just 12 of more than 100 public health labs in the U.S. are currently able to diagnose the coronavirus because of problems with a test developed by the CDC, potentially slowing the response if the virus starts taking hold here. The faulty test has also delayed a plan to widely screen people with symptoms of respiratory illness who have tested negative for influenza to detect whether the coronavirus may be stealthily spreading.
Is the country more prepared or less prepared by virtue of Trump's under funding of agencies who respond to health threats and his firing of personnel whose job it is to coordinate the country's response?Are you too much of a Trumper to understand that as a country with excellent medical facilities the US would score highly on that kind of rating.............without taking in to account Trump's dismantling of the government's organizational structure set up to deal with a pandemic? We both already know the answer so I don't need to wait.
Yeah. More importantly, had the doofus read the report - which he clearly did not - he'd be aware that research for the index was done in 2018. That means, the last reporting data to be incorporated would be from 2017. That was before Trump decapitated the pandemic preparedness infrastructure and defunded the CDC's international preparedness unit into virtual non-existence.
Actually I did drill down to that level Assumer-in-Chief, although of course i did not read the entire 320+ pages. Naturally you did before accusing others of not doing so I am sure. ::eyeroll::
You sling baseless assumptions and ad hominems in a weak attempt at argument, then claim others are stupid. Lol. It's rather pathetic.
Op states this was done by Trump in Spring 2018.
Report published October 2019.
So, we are assuming that a report based entirely on open source data didn't incorporate this rather large development, despite having over a year to rework the results for the United States by running their ~140 question model again with the new information; and instead went right ahead and published their report showing the US at the top of the list in terms of preparedness, such preparedness being the very subject of the report. I call bullshit. Foul, rank, piled-a-mile-high bullshit.
If you can provide facts to back up your apparent supposition that the publishers of this report didn't incorporate this development, despite having nearly a year to do so and their clearly stating that their index is derived complety from open source information. ("The GHS Index relies entirely on open-source information: data that a country has published on its own or has reported to or been reported by an international entity") provide those facts, else take your imperious, baseless garbage elsewhere.
BTW, you may want to dispense with the ad hominems you seem to love so much. They are the refuge of people without facts on their side and think a bit too much of themselves, or go right ahead and bluster on if you like. I see it for what it is so that shit won't have the intended effect on me.
My point stands and ya know why? You offered nothing in the way of facts to refute it. A link to the report and ad hominems won't cut it.
Lame attempt.
Go fish.
Ah, you did "drill down to that level", that's nice to hear. But then, you ask me how I know Trump's decapitation of the U.S. Rapid Response Planning capabilities was not incorporated in the report?
Glad you asked: Says the report on "Emergency preparedness and response planning" score: 100. (P. 303)
But, it's sure good to know you did "drill down to that level", but, as I have said before, whatever you believe you understand about any matter more complex than binding shoe laces is at least hopelessly undercomplex, and most likely seriously wrong.
And now, dummy, you are joining the crowd of brain-dead, integrity-challenged Trump sycophants in my ignore dungeon. Have a good life!
And nothing on your vaunted page 303 says anything about the age of the data, which YOU established as 2017, dumbfuck.
What it does do is show the scores of various categories and you now again in your role of Assumer-In-Chief, suppose that a high score means the data is not current. Maybe in your world of utter ignorance and stupidity that is actual proof, but I got some news for ya, dumbass, it isn't proof. Not even a little bit. You know what proof would be. "Data cited is from 2017" or some such thing. Without that, which you clearly do not have, or you would have posted it, you are a lying piece of shit.
Here's your own 'source', moron, which does not in any way, shape or form back up your claim that the data utilized is not current. I understand now that you are a bullheaded moron that simply cannot process data that contradicts your beliefs, but it is what it is.
Repeatedly you point at this or that to establish a point, but don't actually cite what supports what you say and that is the case here. I would find that odd if I didn't recognize it as a common tactic of BB charlatans such as yourself that are 99% puffery and 1% plain stupid.
You have established yourself as a thin-skinned buffoon that cannot process simple information and hides behind a veil of imperiousness through the use of ad hominems when called out.
YOU presented false suppositions without basis. YOU, when asked to back them up with facts provided noise but no proof. YOU continue to sling ad hominems instead of facts, as you have none. And then YOU accuse others, who have actually posted facts, of lacking integrity.
Go fuck yourself, dipshit. You can't handle rational discourse and now run to the ignore button, as you've been handed your ass on a plate. lol. You're not the first and likely won't be the last self-aggrandizing buffoon that doesn't like their facade being stripped away.
"The study he referenced is a report issued in October called the Global Health Security Index, the first-ever comprehensive ranking of 195 countries on their pandemic preparedness. Though the U.S. does sit atop the rankings, overall the report—produced by the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security at the university's Bloomberg School of Public Health, the Nuclear Threat Initiative, and The Economist Intelligence Unit—paints a discouraging picture of global readiness.Is the country more prepared or less prepared by virtue of Trump's under funding of agencies who respond to health threats and his firing of personnel whose job it is to coordinate the country's response?Yeah. More importantly, had the doofus read the report - which he clearly did not - he'd be aware that research for the index was done in 2018. That means, the last reporting data to be incorporated would be from 2017. That was before Trump decapitated the pandemic preparedness infrastructure and defunded the CDC's international preparedness unit into virtual non-existence.
Actually I did drill down to that level Assumer-in-Chief, although of course i did not read the entire 320+ pages. Naturally you did before accusing others of not doing so I am sure. ::eyeroll::
You sling baseless assumptions and ad hominems in a weak attempt at argument, then claim others are stupid. Lol. It's rather pathetic.
Op states this was done by Trump in Spring 2018.
Report published October 2019.
So, we are assuming that a report based entirely on open source data didn't incorporate this rather large development, despite having over a year to rework the results for the United States by running their ~140 question model again with the new information; and instead went right ahead and published their report showing the US at the top of the list in terms of preparedness, such preparedness being the very subject of the report. I call bullshit. Foul, rank, piled-a-mile-high bullshit.
If you can provide facts to back up your apparent supposition that the publishers of this report didn't incorporate this development, despite having nearly a year to do so and their clearly stating that their index is derived complety from open source information. ("The GHS Index relies entirely on open-source information: data that a country has published on its own or has reported to or been reported by an international entity") provide those facts, else take your imperious, baseless garbage elsewhere.
BTW, you may want to dispense with the ad hominems you seem to love so much. They are the refuge of people without facts on their side and think a bit too much of themselves, or go right ahead and bluster on if you like. I see it for what it is so that shit won't have the intended effect on me.
My point stands and ya know why? You offered nothing in the way of facts to refute it. A link to the report and ad hominems won't cut it.
Lame attempt.
Go fish.
Ah, you did "drill down to that level", that's nice to hear. But then, you ask me how I know Trump's decapitation of the U.S. Rapid Response Planning capabilities was not incorporated in the report?
Glad you asked: Says the report on "Emergency preparedness and response planning" score: 100. (P. 303)
But, it's sure good to know you did "drill down to that level", but, as I have said before, whatever you believe you understand about any matter more complex than binding shoe laces is at least hopelessly undercomplex, and most likely seriously wrong.
And now, dummy, you are joining the crowd of brain-dead, integrity-challenged Trump sycophants in my ignore dungeon. Have a good life!
And nothing on your vaunted page 303 says anything about the age of the data, which YOU established as 2017, dumbfuck.
What it does do is show the scores of various categories and you now again in your role of Assumer-In-Chief, suppose that a high score means the data is not current. Maybe in your world of utter ignorance and stupidity that is actual proof, but I got some news for ya, dumbass, it isn't proof. Not even a little bit. You know what proof would be. "Data cited is from 2017" or some such thing. Without that, which you clearly do not have, or you would have posted it, you are a lying piece of shit.
Here's your own 'source', moron, which does not in any way, shape or form back up your claim that the data utilized is not current. I understand now that you are a bullheaded moron that simply cannot process data that contradicts your beliefs, but it is what it is.
Repeatedly you point at this or that to establish a point, but don't actually cite what supports what you say and that is the case here. I would find that odd if I didn't recognize it as a common tactic of BB charlatans such as yourself that are 99% puffery and 1% plain stupid.
You have established yourself as a thin-skinned buffoon that cannot process simple information and hides behind a veil of imperiousness through the use of ad hominems when called out.
YOU presented false suppositions without basis. YOU, when asked to back them up with facts provided noise but no proof. YOU continue to sling ad hominems instead of facts, as you have none. And then YOU accuse others, who have actually posted facts, of lacking integrity.
Go fuck yourself, dipshit. You can't handle rational discourse and now run to the ignore button, as you've been handed your ass on a plate. lol. You're not the first and likely won't be the last self-aggrandizing buffoon that doesn't like their facade being stripped away.
Are we adequately prepared as apparently the most prepared nation on earth? I could of course, just be a prick and leave it at that, but I wont. I will let you move the goalposts and answer your question. why, I'm not sure, but I will.
We obviously have less people, money etc. In the pipeline as a result of elimination of this program. of course that is the case. it's simple math.
But this does not immediately translate into unprepared, ill-prepared etc.
The CDC annual budget is 11 billion dollars. We are more than likely the most prepared nation on the planet. We do have the capacity to respond to this virus. That capability exists, is being mobilized, and has not been "sabotaged".
"The study he referenced is a report issued in October called the Global Health Security Index, the first-ever comprehensive ranking of 195 countries on their pandemic preparedness. Though the U.S. does sit atop the rankings, overall the report—produced by the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security at the university's Bloomberg School of Public Health, the Nuclear Threat Initiative, and The Economist Intelligence Unit—paints a discouraging picture of global readiness.Is the country more prepared or less prepared by virtue of Trump's under funding of agencies who respond to health threats and his firing of personnel whose job it is to coordinate the country's response?Actually I did drill down to that level Assumer-in-Chief, although of course i did not read the entire 320+ pages. Naturally you did before accusing others of not doing so I am sure. ::eyeroll::
You sling baseless assumptions and ad hominems in a weak attempt at argument, then claim others are stupid. Lol. It's rather pathetic.
Op states this was done by Trump in Spring 2018.
Report published October 2019.
So, we are assuming that a report based entirely on open source data didn't incorporate this rather large development, despite having over a year to rework the results for the United States by running their ~140 question model again with the new information; and instead went right ahead and published their report showing the US at the top of the list in terms of preparedness, such preparedness being the very subject of the report. I call bullshit. Foul, rank, piled-a-mile-high bullshit.
If you can provide facts to back up your apparent supposition that the publishers of this report didn't incorporate this development, despite having nearly a year to do so and their clearly stating that their index is derived complety from open source information. ("The GHS Index relies entirely on open-source information: data that a country has published on its own or has reported to or been reported by an international entity") provide those facts, else take your imperious, baseless garbage elsewhere.
BTW, you may want to dispense with the ad hominems you seem to love so much. They are the refuge of people without facts on their side and think a bit too much of themselves, or go right ahead and bluster on if you like. I see it for what it is so that shit won't have the intended effect on me.
My point stands and ya know why? You offered nothing in the way of facts to refute it. A link to the report and ad hominems won't cut it.
Lame attempt.
Go fish.
Ah, you did "drill down to that level", that's nice to hear. But then, you ask me how I know Trump's decapitation of the U.S. Rapid Response Planning capabilities was not incorporated in the report?
Glad you asked: Says the report on "Emergency preparedness and response planning" score: 100. (P. 303)
But, it's sure good to know you did "drill down to that level", but, as I have said before, whatever you believe you understand about any matter more complex than binding shoe laces is at least hopelessly undercomplex, and most likely seriously wrong.
And now, dummy, you are joining the crowd of brain-dead, integrity-challenged Trump sycophants in my ignore dungeon. Have a good life!
And nothing on your vaunted page 303 says anything about the age of the data, which YOU established as 2017, dumbfuck.
What it does do is show the scores of various categories and you now again in your role of Assumer-In-Chief, suppose that a high score means the data is not current. Maybe in your world of utter ignorance and stupidity that is actual proof, but I got some news for ya, dumbass, it isn't proof. Not even a little bit. You know what proof would be. "Data cited is from 2017" or some such thing. Without that, which you clearly do not have, or you would have posted it, you are a lying piece of shit.
Here's your own 'source', moron, which does not in any way, shape or form back up your claim that the data utilized is not current. I understand now that you are a bullheaded moron that simply cannot process data that contradicts your beliefs, but it is what it is.
Repeatedly you point at this or that to establish a point, but don't actually cite what supports what you say and that is the case here. I would find that odd if I didn't recognize it as a common tactic of BB charlatans such as yourself that are 99% puffery and 1% plain stupid.
You have established yourself as a thin-skinned buffoon that cannot process simple information and hides behind a veil of imperiousness through the use of ad hominems when called out.
YOU presented false suppositions without basis. YOU, when asked to back them up with facts provided noise but no proof. YOU continue to sling ad hominems instead of facts, as you have none. And then YOU accuse others, who have actually posted facts, of lacking integrity.
Go fuck yourself, dipshit. You can't handle rational discourse and now run to the ignore button, as you've been handed your ass on a plate. lol. You're not the first and likely won't be the last self-aggrandizing buffoon that doesn't like their facade being stripped away.
Are we adequately prepared as apparently the most prepared nation on earth? I could of course, just be a prick and leave it at that, but I wont. I will let you move the goalposts and answer your question. why, I'm not sure, but I will.
We obviously have less people, money etc. In the pipeline as a result of elimination of this program. of course that is the case. it's simple math.
But this does not immediately translate into unprepared, ill-prepared etc.
The CDC annual budget is 11 billion dollars. We are more than likely the most prepared nation on the planet. We do have the capacity to respond to this virus. That capability exists, is being mobilized, and has not been "sabotaged".
"National health security is fundamentally weak around the world," the 324-page report concludes. "No country is fully prepared for epidemics or pandemics, and every country has important gaps to address."
Here's the Johns Hopkins study President Trump referenced in his coronavirus news conference
Now that Pence has been set up as the scapegoat, Don's caviler attitude towards how much money is appropriated makes sense..........for him. And that's all that matters to the Narcissist-in-Chief.He added: “Some Republicans would like us to get four [billion] and some Democrats would like us to get eight-and-a-half. We’ll be satisfied whatever it is.”
The decision caught Azar completely off guard which displays the reactive, impulsive, seat of the fatassed pant's way the Orange Fraud is handling this.Now that Pence has been set up as the scapegoat, Don's caviler attitude towards how much money is appropriated makes sense..........for him. And that's all that matters to the Narcissist-in-Chief.He added: “Some Republicans would like us to get four [billion] and some Democrats would like us to get eight-and-a-half. We’ll be satisfied whatever it is.”
The problem isn't whether or not he's sending Pence into the wood chipper - the problem is, he fired the folks who could advise him on the necessary next steps (steps that should have been taken weeks, if not months ago), and who might have had an inkling as to the costs. And that means it doesn't matter all that much how much Congress appropriates, at least not in the short term: Trump wouldn't know how to spend it.
Let's hope Pence, at least, listens to the folks with expertise - even while the Narcissist-in-Chief wouldn't - and also they find a way to make up for lost time. Pence, the bigoted asshole, is around the block long enough to know that he's standing at the edge, needs to get things to work, and fast, in order to avoid getting pushed over it, and hopefully hasn't forgotten that Christian bigotry alone doesn't prevent a pandemic.
Being the best of a bad group doesn't make us ready to handle a pandemic, it just makes us better equipped than the next guy."The study he referenced is a report issued in October called the Global Health Security Index, the first-ever comprehensive ranking of 195 countries on their pandemic preparedness. Though the U.S. does sit atop the rankings, overall the report—produced by the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security at the university's Bloomberg School of Public Health, the Nuclear Threat Initiative, and The Economist Intelligence Unit—paints a discouraging picture of global readiness.Is the country more prepared or less prepared by virtue of Trump's under funding of agencies who respond to health threats and his firing of personnel whose job it is to coordinate the country's response?Ah, you did "drill down to that level", that's nice to hear. But then, you ask me how I know Trump's decapitation of the U.S. Rapid Response Planning capabilities was not incorporated in the report?
Glad you asked: Says the report on "Emergency preparedness and response planning" score: 100. (P. 303)
But, it's sure good to know you did "drill down to that level", but, as I have said before, whatever you believe you understand about any matter more complex than binding shoe laces is at least hopelessly undercomplex, and most likely seriously wrong.
And now, dummy, you are joining the crowd of brain-dead, integrity-challenged Trump sycophants in my ignore dungeon. Have a good life!
And nothing on your vaunted page 303 says anything about the age of the data, which YOU established as 2017, dumbfuck.
What it does do is show the scores of various categories and you now again in your role of Assumer-In-Chief, suppose that a high score means the data is not current. Maybe in your world of utter ignorance and stupidity that is actual proof, but I got some news for ya, dumbass, it isn't proof. Not even a little bit. You know what proof would be. "Data cited is from 2017" or some such thing. Without that, which you clearly do not have, or you would have posted it, you are a lying piece of shit.
Here's your own 'source', moron, which does not in any way, shape or form back up your claim that the data utilized is not current. I understand now that you are a bullheaded moron that simply cannot process data that contradicts your beliefs, but it is what it is.
Repeatedly you point at this or that to establish a point, but don't actually cite what supports what you say and that is the case here. I would find that odd if I didn't recognize it as a common tactic of BB charlatans such as yourself that are 99% puffery and 1% plain stupid.
You have established yourself as a thin-skinned buffoon that cannot process simple information and hides behind a veil of imperiousness through the use of ad hominems when called out.
YOU presented false suppositions without basis. YOU, when asked to back them up with facts provided noise but no proof. YOU continue to sling ad hominems instead of facts, as you have none. And then YOU accuse others, who have actually posted facts, of lacking integrity.
Go fuck yourself, dipshit. You can't handle rational discourse and now run to the ignore button, as you've been handed your ass on a plate. lol. You're not the first and likely won't be the last self-aggrandizing buffoon that doesn't like their facade being stripped away.
Are we adequately prepared as apparently the most prepared nation on earth? I could of course, just be a prick and leave it at that, but I wont. I will let you move the goalposts and answer your question. why, I'm not sure, but I will.
We obviously have less people, money etc. In the pipeline as a result of elimination of this program. of course that is the case. it's simple math.
But this does not immediately translate into unprepared, ill-prepared etc.
The CDC annual budget is 11 billion dollars. We are more than likely the most prepared nation on the planet. We do have the capacity to respond to this virus. That capability exists, is being mobilized, and has not been "sabotaged".
"National health security is fundamentally weak around the world," the 324-page report concludes. "No country is fully prepared for epidemics or pandemics, and every country has important gaps to address."
Here's the Johns Hopkins study President Trump referenced in his coronavirus news conference
Yes, I read it, actually.
On a global level a lot of countries are not ready.
Being the best of a bad group doesn't make us ready to handle a pandemic, it just makes us better equipped than the next guy."The study he referenced is a report issued in October called the Global Health Security Index, the first-ever comprehensive ranking of 195 countries on their pandemic preparedness. Though the U.S. does sit atop the rankings, overall the report—produced by the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security at the university's Bloomberg School of Public Health, the Nuclear Threat Initiative, and The Economist Intelligence Unit—paints a discouraging picture of global readiness.Is the country more prepared or less prepared by virtue of Trump's under funding of agencies who respond to health threats and his firing of personnel whose job it is to coordinate the country's response?And nothing on your vaunted page 303 says anything about the age of the data, which YOU established as 2017, dumbfuck.
What it does do is show the scores of various categories and you now again in your role of Assumer-In-Chief, suppose that a high score means the data is not current. Maybe in your world of utter ignorance and stupidity that is actual proof, but I got some news for ya, dumbass, it isn't proof. Not even a little bit. You know what proof would be. "Data cited is from 2017" or some such thing. Without that, which you clearly do not have, or you would have posted it, you are a lying piece of shit.
Here's your own 'source', moron, which does not in any way, shape or form back up your claim that the data utilized is not current. I understand now that you are a bullheaded moron that simply cannot process data that contradicts your beliefs, but it is what it is.
Repeatedly you point at this or that to establish a point, but don't actually cite what supports what you say and that is the case here. I would find that odd if I didn't recognize it as a common tactic of BB charlatans such as yourself that are 99% puffery and 1% plain stupid.
You have established yourself as a thin-skinned buffoon that cannot process simple information and hides behind a veil of imperiousness through the use of ad hominems when called out.
YOU presented false suppositions without basis. YOU, when asked to back them up with facts provided noise but no proof. YOU continue to sling ad hominems instead of facts, as you have none. And then YOU accuse others, who have actually posted facts, of lacking integrity.
Go fuck yourself, dipshit. You can't handle rational discourse and now run to the ignore button, as you've been handed your ass on a plate. lol. You're not the first and likely won't be the last self-aggrandizing buffoon that doesn't like their facade being stripped away.
Are we adequately prepared as apparently the most prepared nation on earth? I could of course, just be a prick and leave it at that, but I wont. I will let you move the goalposts and answer your question. why, I'm not sure, but I will.
We obviously have less people, money etc. In the pipeline as a result of elimination of this program. of course that is the case. it's simple math.
But this does not immediately translate into unprepared, ill-prepared etc.
The CDC annual budget is 11 billion dollars. We are more than likely the most prepared nation on the planet. We do have the capacity to respond to this virus. That capability exists, is being mobilized, and has not been "sabotaged".
"National health security is fundamentally weak around the world," the 324-page report concludes. "No country is fully prepared for epidemics or pandemics, and every country has important gaps to address."
Here's the Johns Hopkins study President Trump referenced in his coronavirus news conference
Yes, I read it, actually.
On a global level a lot of countries are not ready.
It wasn't? Then why were they ranked relative to others?this wasn't an assessment performed relative to others
