A pandemic that affects all states and all countries in the world and requires almost unprecedented collective action to solve? How can forcing states to figure it out themselves possibly be beneficial? Why is the Governor of NY negotiating directly with Chinese suppliers? Why are states bidding against each for the same scarce equipment, enriching only the middlemen who have suddenly and suspiciously inserted themselves in the process?

FWIW, states like New York and California have larger populations and economies than most European countries. That, I think, is an argument in favor of being more hands off and letting the governors figure out what’s right in their state. They’ll have a much better understanding of what their local problems and capabilities are.

The EU organised a joint purchase.

I'm not sure how much single-country purchasing has also happened.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_...

That article was from March 24th, more recently (and as things got even more serious) bigger EU countries like Germany have started going solo, like documented in this recent article [1]. The article is in German (which I don't know) but I'm going to post a translation provided by some other guy from whom I've taken the link:

> During the Corona crisis, Chancellor Angela Merkel, in talks with China's President Xi, created the conditions for Germany to gain direct access to a state-owned Chinese manufacturer of protective clothing. This is stated in a paper with which the Federal Ministry of Health informed the Bundestag about the procurement of protective clothing.

> The paper for the Bundestag states that after a discussion between Merkel and Xi and subsequent talks between the Chinese Ministry of Commerce and the Federal Ministry of Health, "direct access to a state producer (Moheco) could be established" at the beginning of April. Moheco promised a "higher level of quality and delivery reliability". In addition, an "air bridge" between China and Germany will be established with unused Lufthansa passenger planes to transport the masks.

As a non-German EU citizen I find this type of tactics very, very wrong and fundamentally detrimental to the future of the Union.

[1] https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/schutzausruestung-merkel...

If I recall correctly, at least the first tender failed. No manufacturer responded.

They don't have an army, a passport, borders, a seat an the UN or any real diplomacy ties.

So unless you want to turn the state into a country, its power of negotiation is limited.

No I don’t think it is. Their local problems are the exact same virus as everyone else’s local problems.

No its not, for instance just population density is a huge factor in the spread of a virus. If you live in an area where people are fairly isolated or travel outside their region very little, than you don't need to do the same extreme lockdowns or shut down the economy to the same degree to prevent the spread.

I live in a state that's barely being touched by this, and not because we don't have it, but because there are two large cities that have maybe 100+ cases or significant hospital load, and the spread is insignificant because its very easy for people to avoid each other and take basic precautions during interaction to prevent the spread. If you live in apartment buildings, 6 feet from your neighbor with only a wall to separate you stacked stories high with shared elevators, stairwells, hallways, and the majority of transport requires people to be in close proximity on sidewalks, buses, or trains, the factors and extreme measures needed to stop its spread are very different than someone living in Alaska or Idaho. Those people don't need to stay in their homes, they just need to avoid going anywhere unnecessary with large groups of people and wash their hands and cover their mouths.

Some states have higher rates of obesity or other risk factors, some states have higher populations of elderly than others. One size fits all measures doesn't work, you need focused precision efforts determined by locals and the only thing they need from the umbrella governments is support in their efforts for needs they've determined are necessary.

You don't know how many cases your state has because we're doing a piss poor job of testing. Unless you're in Alaska, Wyoming, or North Dakota, your state has more than 300+ cases, and probably a magnitude more.

This idea that states with smaller populations aren't at risk is a foolish one. Sure you may not end up with death counts like NYC, but you'll still end up with some; hopefully you won't overtax your healthcare system.

I figured someone would say that, the testing tells you if its spreading in asymptomatic or mild cases, but the reason for that is because we want to stop serious cases.

We know how many people are in the hospital. Honestly, that's all that matters, if we have less people in the hospitals relative to our population, then we have less spread. We have less capacity relative to population size, and they're not being overrun. You don't need testing to know if your hospitals and ICU's are overrun.

>This idea that states with smaller populations aren't at risk is a foolish one.

I never said that, I said the risk factors are different and the actions you need to take to prevent spread might be less drastic. I'm arguing against the idea of a one size fits all solution, something that needs to be done to stop the spread in a place like NYC is unnecessarily restrictive and dampening in the local economy in a small town, where people can just wash their hands, avoid going anywhere but work and shopping for necessities, and businesses taking basic precautions like WFH and avoiding direct interaction where possible, and avoiding gatherings of large groups.

I can leave my house, go out in my yard, and walk down my street and possibly not even see anyone else out, much less come within 6 feet of them. I can get in my car and go somewhere else and not have to come in contact with anyone. You can't do that in a city center, people have to stay in their apartments for two weeks, without leaving or wear protective gear when they do leave, because leaving their residence without interacting with people is impossible, you're liable to run into someone in the hallway, stairwell, elevator, sidewalk, bus, or train/subway, all of which are rolling the dice on infection. If you're in the same apartment building, its possible you're breathing the same air, and have the cruise ship effect. Someone in Oklahoma doesn't have those same risk factors, they don't interact with the same number of people going about their daily business, just avoiding travel is enough to keep the whole community isolated. Nothing much is gained by having them restricted to their house at all times, they just need to avoid certain things that would put them in more interaction with others than normal, or traveling outside their region and vice versa.

What is being done now is probably best, you set baseline restrictions for the nation as a whole, and then each regional government increases or adds on to those restrictions based on the needs of their area.

Population density and demographics vary widely between New York City and the farms upstate and the old steel towns in western New York State. Maybe we should make each mayor fight the virus alone since they know their community better than the governor? Big differences between Manhattan and Staten Island too, maybe each borough is on its own?

The feud between DeBlasio and Cuomo in NYC is one instance in which the mayor did know better. Mayor DeBlasio wanted to lockdown the city sooner, but Governor Cuomo blocked it.

https://nypost.com/2020/03/17/cuomo-de-blasio-clash-over-pos...

DeBlasio was telling people on March 2 to go out on the town and watch a movie on Twitter.

Trump is an easy scapegoat for obvious reasons, so politicians and local people use him when not wanting to accept personal responsibility for the consequences of their own actions, or lack there of. If you already take the position that the President can't be relied on and should be out of office, why would you delay taking action yourself to prevent a scenario where you're waiting on hospital ships and the US Army to assist, or acting like you're the only place in the US that needs help, then complaining later that the President didn't do more? It's schizophrenic and hypocritical.

The claim about size is basically a red herring. A small independent nation could set whatever course it wanted. But California is administered on a day to day basis based on Local, State and Federal policy. You might see local and state officials and workers more often but to a substantial degree they are executing Federal policy that come in the form of grants to states and municipalities.

And this is to say that the states are not prepared act as nations at a moment's notice and without the expectation that they will act independently, they don't have either the resources or the experience (but I guess they're learning fast).

Even more, if you live in the US, you might have noticed you pay far income tax to the Federal Government than to your state government. A lot of this money goes back to the states but only for particular, mandated purposes. This makes it rather difficult, again, for states to suddenly offer their own emergency management system, especially when Feds have a fully budgeted emergency management agency (FEMA, the, uh, Federal Emergency Management Agency) where the states don't agencies with equivalent funding. So when FEMA doesn't actually act, we have a serious problem.

I imagine you're going to want coordination so that states are not competing with each other to purchase ventilators / PPE / whatever else they need. Otherwise you're going to drive up the price for everyone. There's certainly an argument to be had that the federal government preventing states from acting can be costly, but I do think you need some level of coordination in order to prevent waste on a massive scale.

But the demand is worldwide. Surely a single state negotiating on its own is irrelevant in comparison to the fact that every single country on earth is trying to procure supplies at a level never before experienced.

There's nothing local specific in PPE. Everybody needs the same things.

There are a lot of good answers to your questions here. On balance, I tend to agree the federal government should be doing more coordination, less official policy setting, but more collaboration with state governments to help them set sensible policies.

Regardless, I think part of the problem is visceral reactions like this. Understandable, considering the scope of the problem we're facing, but I'd ask people to exercise a little empathy for the other side, consider that our instincts may be wrong in at least limited situations, and generally do more listening. COVID had exacerbated the political problems in our country, but it didn't create them, and they'll still be here when COVID has been exterminated. Something for us all to work on.

The US's system seems to be dominated by the states (writing as an observer from abroad).

This may work well during normal times but it has limitations, which show in times like what we're experiencing now.

It was mentioned on the BBC recently that the federal government has no power to impose lockdowns, for example.

While technically correct (i.e. Federal powers are limited), realistically they can, and do, use the power of the purse to get cooperation. 'Oh, you want Federal resources for this? We're going to need you to do your part by doing X, Y and Z first...' Also, many many years ago we had a Congress that would actually pass laws that States would have to follow... but that was so long ago it probably sounds like fiction to most reading this.

The larger issue (and we're seeing it with the current crisis) is that many things are broken at the Federal, State and local levels and each level is busy pointing fingers at another level(s) in an attempt to redirect blame.

That's a good thing! The state governors at least nominally care about their people.

Great points in favor of a good QB. Fat middlement don't disappear with centralization though -- see: defense contractor fraud [1]

[1]: https://fas.org/blogs/secrecy/2019/05/defense-contracting-fr...

You've obviously never dealt with the federal procurement process!

The US is a federal republic. That structure is one of its great strengths. Wishing it was a unitary state at this time does not get us anywhere.

Consider the CDC bungling of getting out the initial test kits and the regulations that kicked in that prevented states from developing tests for a few weeks. That was some critical time wasted in the name of "efficient centralization".

I would think when the type of need is uniform across all states (testing, supplies, containment rules, support for workers and businesses, etc...) and the only difference in each state is in the volume of the need, the Federal Government would take charge. It has more funds and the ability to mandate uniform rules. It also has access to people who are paid to be the smartest folks in the room in dealing with pandemics. This is what the CDC was designed for. Having 50 different states try to piece together a response to an international problem seems destined to... lead us exactly where we are - a day late and a dollar short. Avoiding this was predicated on not having a complete imbecile at the helm though. It really mucks everything up.

Department of State should step in to restore fearless travel conditions as the pandemic is a situation preventing people actually practice statutorily guaranteed freedom to travel.

EDIT: I looked up; the Department of Health or the Department of State would be more fit for purpose. Not the Department of Homeland Security, because TSA is actually a Travel Security Agency despite it is named Travel Safety Agency.

> Department of Interior should step in to restore fearless travel conditions as the pandemic is a situation preventing people actually practice statutorily guaranteed freedom to travel.

In spirit I don’t disagree but how can the Department of the Interior do this? What is the specific action?

Also why would The Department of the Interior be responsible for travel conditions rather than something like The Department of Transportation?

E: I still don’t follow, what action can be taken by any agency to make travel fearless in time of pandemic?

Department of State carries out U.S. foreign policy. What can they do to change the reality of a pandemic?

> I still don’t follow, what action can be taken by any agency to make travel fearless in time of pandemic?

Government information advertisement (something like you still have right to life and freedom of travel, pandemic doesn't change that, followed by advice on safe travel without risking someone else's health), conscription, personal protective equipment distribution.

Encouraging people to travel is the last thing we need right now.

>..., conscription, ...

What?

Selective Service is still a thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_System

Sure but what does it have to do with encouraging travel during a pandemic?

Conscripts to temporarily replace deceased and/or incapacitated government servants. Government service cannot be stopped completely.

What? Replace who? To do what? How does conscription of government employees from any department change the reality of a pandemic? Travel is not safe. That’s the whole point.

We need to ramp up testing and find a vaccine. We do not need to encourage travel. Quite the opposite.

No, there's zero debate to be had. They actively intercept and confiscate medical supplies that states purchase to save their populations from dying. Blue states, I might add. Which is of course a complete coincidence. (And other countries haven't been immune to this either, but that's another story.)

See, this is why it's lose-lose for the federal government. If they allow states to bid against each other for the same equipment, enriching shady middlemen and stockpilers, this is proof they've failed (see comment elsewhere in thread) - but if they seize those stockpiles and don't allow them to be sold at a massive markup to the highest bidder, they're actively intercepting medical supplies that states purchase to save their populations from dying. The American press has been loudly pushing both of these narratives at once.

Probably because the president (still the leader of said government) telling the press that his people shouldn't talk to governors which haven't been nice enough to him doesn't inspire confidence that the second part is done in the best interest of all states. Now, if the federal government would show that they don't just do it for selfish purposes that narrative would die down pretty fast.

The lack of coordination and mixed messages have been a problem. Trump has publicly said governors should be fending for themselves, and has also been "punishing" states with governors he doesn't like by not taking their calls. States have no reason to trust the federal government to properly help them, and the federal government has shown no capacity or willingness to do anything but release funds.

A: "there's a good debate to be had about the role of justice system, should it seek to rehabilitate or punish?"

B: "no, there's zero debate to be had because this one judge was caught taking bribes"

One is a question about purpose and design, the other is a bug in the implementation.

No, there might be a nice debate later, but this crisis isn't an exercise in theory. There are people dying right now because of an administration that downplayed the crisis, failed to react, and is now actively sabotaging our state level response unless officials perform personal favours to the president.

None of that changes our ability to have that debate now. You're allowed to discuss current events on the internet. No one will get you for it.

Maybe there's a debate to be had about how the Federal Government should act but there shouldn't be a debate whether it should act and the article gives a good description of the Federal Government simply failing to act and even sabotaging action. The unconscionable and rather unbelievable.

There's a difference between having a terrific debate and changing the national stockpile website mid-pandemic to say "nah"

Other federal systems face the same dilemmas.

In Australia the powers of the states and federal government are set by the constitution. The feds don't have jurisdiction in many areas. It has to be a team effort. So they have whole of government meetings to work out a common, co-ordinated approach. We see a common message and have federal government support for the states but each state is free to implement measures appropriate to their local situation.

I think this consensus driven approach is the only way it can work. The federal government implementing border security, helping with international trade, mobilising military, providing funding. States legislating isolation, enforcing law and order, organising hospitals and testing. Australia has a much smaller population, fewer states and less political extremes. It would be easy to dismiss our relatively good performance in this crisis as due to our isolation and geography. But I think our political system has worked well for us. Even though I don't like some of our political leadership and don't consider them very effective normally, even their worst efforts are looking good compared to what I see elsewhere in the world.

I think in a crisis like this if you rely too strongly on a quarterback to take control you can get into a lot of trouble if your quarterback turns out to be useless or even detrimental. The elected king model is too risky. An executive controlled by the legislature is far more responsible and effective.

doesn't pandemic infection fall under interstate commerce, and thus is pure federal domain?

No. The Courts have ruled in the past that for public safety, states can restrict travel.