Well, they tried to get rid of him with the "sex scandal" stuff and that didn't work. He was betting that the prestige press wouldn't bring up the nursing home deaths--since other governors have the same problem lurking--but he forced them to. They really, really don't want him in 2024. So goes the conspiracy thinking anyway.
The nursing home scandal was known long before. The sex scandal seemed to be used to cover that up. His top aide, Melissa DeRosa, has admitted to covering up the nursing home deaths. People have come out saying he was intimidating them. He is under Federal investigation. What part of it is a conspiracy theory?
He knowingly sent people with covid into nursing homes against the will of the people running them, even though that's how the first major outbreak happened in Washington state. He then covered it all up by trying to attribute the deaths to hospitals. Then stonewalled the Feds asking for information about those deaths. His aide admitted to it. He should be in jail. He killed at least 15,000 people as a direct result of his orders.
I just hope they investigate the other 5 governors that sent the people with covid back into nursing homes.
They should have all known. This is how it all started, it seems deliberate. Cover-up or not, they are all either dangerously incompetent or malicious.
While I despise Cuomo, I'm a little leary about condemning politicians about their actions back in the early days of the pandemic. Taking action is sometimes necessary even with incomplete or bad information, and it will sometimes turn out to have been the wrong decision. That's inevitable. It would often be worse to have an executive that is paralyzed in fear of making a decision that turns out to be wrong.
Now, the post-facto coverup, that doesn't deserve any benefit of the doubt. That's just sleaze and corruption.
Where could those people going back to nursing home go? I'm assuming that if another facility or their family could have taken them they would have opted for that. Reminder that likely these people needed 24/7 skilled nursing help.
> Either properly supply your nursing homes with PPE or bring the nursing home staff to the hospitals.
The PPE that was acutely in short supply and unavailable at the beginning of the pandemic? Even doctors and nurses didn't have adequate PPE back then, and many of them got sick and died because of it.
Everyone was panicking that the epidemic would grow exponentially and the hospitals would get over-run. Hence freeing up beds, and building a bunch of eventually pointless overflow hospitals.
A lot of modelling was claiming that's exactly what would happen, e.g. Imperial College London claiming millions of deaths, while the actual infection curves never hit those numbers.
In hindsight, that's not how the virus works, it seems to infect clusters and then drops and eventually levels out, jumps to a new clusters does the same thing, and on.
The Imperial College report included projections if all recommended NPIs were implemented. That includes lockdowns, masks, social distancing, and so on.
Those projections were still wildly off the mark. There is no way to look at their projections and take them seriously as modelers. They were simply wrong. They made bad parameter assumptions, didn't question their results or cross-validate, and ran with the scariest projections of their models.
"For those readers who are unfamiliar with it, the Imperial College model is the one that projected that 2.2 million Americans (and 510,000 residents of the UK) could die from COVID-19 over the next two years without public health interventions."
"When updated data in the Imperial team’s model indicated that the United Kingdom’s health service would soon be overwhelmed with severe cases of COVID-19, and might face more than 500,000 deaths if the government took no action... The same model suggested that, with no action, the United States might face 2.2 million deaths..."
You should read the reports, and not news articles about the reports. These news articles are referring to the very first report, which made projections for the UK through October 2020.
Here's the March 26, 2020 report, covering the rest of the world, with far more specific predictions:
In this report, they predict 2.2 million deaths in the US in the unmitigated scenario, and over 1 million in the "social distancing" scenario. Their projection if the US "suppressed" the virus (by uniformly cutting contacts by 75% as soon as the death rate exceeded 1.6 per 100k; by my math, that's about 5,000 deaths) was 474,000 dead.
So, uh...that was wrong.
They projected 40 million deaths, worldwide (current actual total 3.14M) in the unmitigated scenario, with between 1.9M and 10.5M deaths in the "total suppression" scenario (depending on how soon lockdowns occurred).
If you go to the spreadsheet [1], you'll see lots of other fun projections:
* 470,000-670,000 deaths in Japan in the "social distancing" scenarios (current total: 10,031, despite living mostly normally throughout 2020).
* 330k-740k deaths in the "social distancing" scenarios for France (620k-760k "unmitigated"; current total: just over 3M, despite a year of strict interventions).
* Let's not forget their projection of 60,000-90,000 deaths in Sweden, in the "unmitigated" scenario (current total: 13,968).
Overall, their predictions bear very little resemblance to reality.
I don't care what they did after they knew the answer. In the one prospective test that mattered, they utterly, hilariously failed. And in the process they caused huge collateral damage to society.
This is why, in most fields of modeling with any intellectual rigor, we have blinded prospective tests.
Threatening to take medical licenses away for administering vaccines to people who weren’t eligible even if the vaccine was going to be thrown away.... and then doing a 180 and threatening to take away medical licenses if vaccines were not administered.
Writing a book about his supposed epic handling of the virus.
I am a New Yorker that had a relative die of COVID in a nursing home last year. I could understand the decision at first because they were literally constructing hospitals on athletic fields at my local university to deal with the packed hospitals. But own up to it and don't cover it up.
Regardless of your political persuasion what Cuomo did is wrong by covering it up. We can't have 2 standards for politicians based on if it is someone on your team.
Did those hospitals ever get used? I heard some reports that the auxiliary hospitals brought to NYC (especially the floating Navy(?) one) never even saw patients, for lots of obnoxious red-tape reasons.
No not really. The literal field hospitals were not done before the spike subsided, and the ship saw only a few patients. The ship was specifically NOT for covid patients, and so few patients that were not COVID were coming in. And yes there was a lot of red tape to get someone there.
Not just sleaze and corruption. This administration was hiding data about a pandemic when we desperately needed more information about how to fight the pandemic. That is despicable and indefensible.
I can forgive bad decisions in a time of crisis. But what they did was way beyond that.
> He knowingly sent people with covid into nursing homes against the will of the people running them...
Don't mean to be aggressive but where else would you like for the people whose domicile is in the nursing home to go? These are not people in independent living facilities, they likely need 24/7 skilled care.
Allowing the people to go back to the nursing home (aka their home) seemed like the right thing to do at the time. It unfortunately didn't play out so well and I am glad I wasn't the one making that decision.
I think it was a tough decision. The nursing homes could have contained the spread but clearly were incapable of doing so.
> Then stonewalled the Feds asking for information about those deaths.
No excuse for that, just lay it all out. The stonewalling was intentional and possibly illegal, he should answer for that.
There was a hospital ship he could have used, it only had 179 patients over 3 weeks. There were hospitals made that never reached full capacity. Hell, setup a tent. You're saying the only option was to infect and kill 15,000 people?
The hospital ships weren't for covid patients, but for others who couldn't get a bed due to the hospitals being over capacity. The military specifically was testing everyone coming to make sure they didn't have covid because it can spread way faster in the confines of a ship.
The point is those ships were under capacity the whole time.
Send more non-covid patients to them, keep elderly patients in the hospitals. New York never reached full capacity overall.
If you MUST send covid patients to nursing homes, make sure they are prepared with PPE.
Other states did so, Cuomo and the 5 other governors should have known to do so. We already had outbreaks in a nursing home that everyone was aware of.
That was true initially, but they changed tack about a week later. The ship reduced capacity from 1000 beds to 500 specifically so that they could accomodate covid patients, because there weren't enough other patients to matter. In addition, the Javits center field hospital never reached more than about 5% of its available capacity. Meanwhile the nursing home down the street from me was begging the city to let them send their covid positive residents to to the ship, or to the javits, were told that those were only for hospital overflow, and they should keep the residents in place. more than 60 of them died, the highest death toll of any nursing home in the state.
Hospitals did in fact need the beds (nursing home beds >>> hospital beds). Additionally they are ill-equipped for the skilled help these people needed. People suffer from dementia/alzheimers and hospitals only option is to handcuff people to their beds (which is inhumane long-term).
I don't want to play politics and I do think more could have been done here). Like: quickly granting nursing homes aid in terms of PPE + cash + national guard help. I'm just trying to change your mind that the situation was much more nuanced that the NYTimes is advocating for.
Like Newsom who gave the biggest non-apology I've seen about getting caught violating his own COVID-19 stay-at-home orders, and then said the recall against him was being orchestrated by white supremacist antisemites (nazis) which is over 1.5 million people in his own state... I'm sure Cuomo will find something similar to say.
i'm ready to impeach newsom, but polling seems to suggests it's unlikely. i'd happily sign a petition to impeach LA mayor garcetti as well, if any were organized to do so. the pandemic response here was beyond stupidly awful--a combination of what-if based fearmongering and a frenzy of unadulterated free (i.e., debt-fueled) federal money-grubbing.
the whole colored tier system was a farcical distraction from real mitigations like quarantining nursing homes and their staff who'd volunteer for 24-hour hero pay and 2-week on-off cycles (long enough to recuperate and re-quarantine), and asking people to distance indoors around familiars, which is where most transmission happens, rather than around strangers or out on the street where your silly mask-wearing does less than nothing. 90% of angelenos, by my anecdotal count, still wear masks outdoors, as if it were a talisman against impending death.
despite unceasing media howling, our infection rates held relatively steady for a year, until recently, when vaccinations finally started to have a real effect on those rates. none of that (double-)mask-wearing, excessive hand-sanitizing, overly restrictive retail-closing, and incessant surface-disinfecting propounded by the state/county/city did anything to mitigate spread, only modest distancing indoors and restricted interfamilial contact had much mitigative effect (and the latter could have been handled much less invasively and damagingly).
i'm decidedly unamused by the stupidity of it all and ready for new leadership of any stripe other than democrat or republican.
Before Washington state we had the clear data from the elderly homes in Bergamo Italy where they made the exact same mistake over a month earlier with catastrophic results. Before that we knew from the Wuhan data that CV19 is a highly asymmetric threat and it was critical to protect elderly and immuno-compromised.
The history is still to be written but the U.S. policy choice to go with broad lockdowns of everyone instead of the "focused protection" plan may go down as the worst public health error of modern times. Since they were hit hard and first, Hubei Province and Northern Italy at least have the excuse of no priors. By the time NY got hit any serious analyst knew and many were recommending circling the wagons around the vulnerable.
I have no idea if fault lies with Cuomo personally or someone he delegated this to, but someone in NY seriously fucked up. Hell, in Bergamo prosecutors filed charges against some city/regional administrators for negligent manslaughter (or similar).
Yes, Florida focused their resources on protecting their elderly population and didn't implement broad lockdowns of people who weren't sick or at-risk. Their per-capita results are better than NY, CA and many other states.
Sweden also deserves credit for getting the public health policy right. They had the right plan but have admitted they could have done better in some of the early execution phase around protecting elder facilities. 7
Tried and true method we learned over time. The leaders that were strong enough to respond properly should be congratulated. This was a gigantic shot to the foot by our public health leadership, most state and federal leaders, and fawning media. And it's not even close to over.
> The nursing home scandal was known long before. The sex scandal seemed to be used to cover that up.
The opposite, I thought -- he seemed to be weathering the nursing home scandal, and now the sex scandal seems to be taking him down. Before his sexual behavior was publicized, people were joking/not joking that Andrew Cuomo was the poster child for our (Democrats') inability to hold anyone accountable for anything as long as they seemed woke and likable and said all the right things on cultural issues. Then his sexual behavior hit the news, and it was like, wow, is there anything metoo can't do? At least now Democrats nationally want him gone, though it's always harder to get a popular politician's own constituents to turn against him.
In retrospect I would have done the same: Force the nursing homes to accept their residents back if the residents have no other options.
However, I would have throw in much more aid to the ones that were forced. Cash + PPE + National Guard. If I couldn't provide help, then I wouldn't force. That would mean that it would be up to the hospitals to figure it out and find a home for them or until they were covid-free.
Obviously I'm playing backseat Covid response governor here. Hindsight is 20/20.
If you have to send residents back, you must create COVID and non-COVID facilities to ensure isolation. You also shouldn't send infected persons there just because you can.
At this point, do a little introspection. Did you hear about this last year? From who? Did you find it credible? Why or why not? Is there any way you can grow in your consumption of information based on your findings?
The people I named are Democrats, I don't see this as a partisan thing. It's a humanity thing. I'm simply answering your questions of who blew the whistle and how we found out about it.
Introspection. I'm asking each individual to evaluate their own information intake valve. There are objective sources, the question is how and when we accept or dismiss them.
Right back atcha -- because while there are plenty of covid screwups to go around, someone who thinks this one got suppressed probably has an information diet that disproportionately focused attention on this screw up in order to shift attention away from their own screw up, which was orders of magnitude larger.
> The effort by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo’s office to obscure the pandemic death toll in New York nursing homes was far greater than previously known, with aides repeatedly overruling state health officials over a span of at least five months, according to interviews and newly unearthed documents.
Sounds like this one got suppressed according to the article.
> someone who thinks this one got suppressed probably has an information diet that disproportionately focused attention on this screw up in order to shift attention away from their own screw up, which was orders of magnitude larger.
This is whataboutism. The article is about Cuomo's bad response to COVID regarding nursing homes.
With regard to obscuring the death toll, I agree, and Cuomo needs to be dealt with.
With regard to prioritizing this story against it's competitor, however, I think my information diet got the mix about right, which is to say in proportion to impact.
> This is whataboutism.
If we were just talking about Cuomo, sure -- but you brought up information diets and suppression, which absolutely brings into scope the nonstop 24/7 Republican efforts to use the Cuomo story as whataboutism.
Most of the media was actively praising Cuomo at a time when roughly half of US casualties were in NY. I can’t speak to your media diet in particular, but it’s not like CNN had their Cuomo criticism on page 2 and their Trump criticism on the front page—their Trump criticism and Cuomo praise were both on the metaphorical front page.
What’s the implication here? Anyone with a pulse on moderate or conservative media must be a rabid Trump supporter? What do we gain from this kind of dichotomous thinking?
> Did you hear about this last year? From who? Did you find it credible? Why or why not?
Your questions above propose the idea of bias in the information delivery and reception, which inherently maps to political partisanship. What other sort of bias could your questions possibly evoke?
Cuomo was exposed and has been condemned largely by officials within his own party, and also broadly by the media, whether left, right, or center.
Nobody cared what the body count was until the body count turned into a house seat.
The really sick thing as that this sudden influx of give-a-shits is sending the message that "the party will back you if you kill people so long as you don't lose a house seat in the process" which is not a great message to be sending.
> Nobody cared what the body count was until the body count turned into a house seat.
How did the body count turn into a house seat exactly? There are dozens of ways that New York's population count could have gone 89 in either direction and changed the house seat allocation. At those small margins, it's basically a coin toss.
The nursing home deaths are no more or less related to the house seat than any other small scale demographic event that happened last year.
The deaths are arguably far less consequential than the effect of people leaving the state to move away from the early impact of the pandemic and into remote work scenarios.
The 2020 Census, not today’s post Covid population count is used for congressional apportionment. The current population of NY has nothing to do with it.
Agreed. I’m a liberal and a democrat but the Dems and the media are not brave whistleblowers for suppressing the truth until the very last politically tenable moment.
> Cuomo was exposed and has been condemned largely by officials within his own party, and also broadly by the media, whether left, right, or center.
Correct, but for the nursing home residents and their families that too little too late. I first read about this last summer as the nursing home rules began to take effect. At the time the party and media were too busy holding Cuomo up as an anti-Trumpian figure. They gave him an Emmy and cute nicknames while this happened. It is all just a little too much for me.
NPR has been talking about this since January or so. Not exactly a right wing propaganda outlet.
Howie Carr was talking about it around the same period as NPR. For folks outside of New England, he is a right wing radio host but he puts a spin on actual news rather than just making up garbage.
What credible source was talking about this before January?
Right wing media was talking about this last summer. It seems the propaganda was in fact coming from those in the Cuomo administration trying to deflect blame.
I don't remember exactly where I heard it first, but I googled and found this US News & World Report story about it from July 14, 2020:
One has to be crazy to believe anything from the right wing media after things like that which are just a tip of the iceberg of lies they regularly spread. They did it to themselves.
>What credible source was talking about this before January?
It is probably easier to ask which major news sources were not talking about this prior to January.
You can easily find articles posted prior to January from The Association Press, Fox News, CNN, Daily Wire, NY Post, Daily Mail, Daily Caller, Washington Times, The Federalist, USA Today, etc. Many of those sites had articles back in May.
I am not confusing them. There were absolutely articles last year about this (though maybe not as far back as May for this specifically).
Here is an article from the Washington Post back in August 2020
> New York’s coronavirus death toll in nursing homes, already among the highest in the nation, could actually be a significant undercount. Unlike every other state with major outbreaks, New York only counts residents who died on nursing home property and not those who were transported to hospitals and died there.
> That statistic could add thousands to the state’s official care home death toll of just over 6,600. But so far the administration of Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo has refused to divulge the number, leading to speculation the state is manipulating the figures to make it appear it is doing better than other states and to make a tragic situation less dire.
That is a surprisingly bad take from Nate Silver, who I am usually a fan of. The fact that Florida has less excess death than the national average does not preclude systematic undercounting. One can both have lower actual deaths than average and also undercount those deaths.
And the article that I linked to quoted a study that used excess death numbers and compared those to the official counts. That is by far the best method to estimate an undercount.
As far as information consumption goes, though, I think if anything I've consumed too much. I don't live in NY and the stuff happening there has no relevance to me.
When people scoff at the source, like when people sniff "but that's on faux news", the report is unlikely to be accepted at face value. This is a major problem, in that real information surfaces on both "political sides" (they aren't really both sides, but that's a discussion for another day) and people discount items that conflict with the particular narrative they believe in.
At the very beginning it was winter in the Northeast and treatment protocols were being development. Is it fair to even compare the virus that came into NY during Jan to a state where it came after 6 months of study, data and summer weather?
> At the very beginning it was winter in the Northeast and treatment protocols were being development.
These two factors are key, in my opinion. Infection rates and deaths fell dramatically in the NE after a better understanding of how to treat COVID was gained, after mitigations for spread were implemented, and after the spring. Those rates also stayed relatively low for the remainder of the pandemic compared to other states, as well.
My grandfather, along with many of the other patients, died in one of these places from COVID in Massachusetts last May.
He was in a physical rehab following heart surgery to fix damage from a botched pacemaker installation. The family spent most of January -> March getting the equipment and reworking his house so he could be cared for at home, but he caught COVID before it was ready. He was in critical condition for 2 months until he finally passed. The real kick in the gut that he was considered "COVID free" for the last two weeks but the damage to his lungs was too great.
My grandmother was able to be with him when he died, holding his hand in a hazmat suit...
New York ends up being a problematic comparison point, because they were at zero restrictions until mid March 2020, so most of the infections through near the end of March were effectively a "no restrictions" test case. I.e. people testing positive late March were the highly symptomatic cases (because of limited test availability), so these were generally people infected 10+ days before, which means they were before any restrictions. Restrictions on mass gatherings happened on March 12th, but the stay-at-home order didn't happen until March 22nd.
What I'm getting at is that, if you want to use New York as a test comparison for loose vs tight restrictions, you're going to have a much deeper analysis to do, and a large portion of the deaths in New York were effectively resulting from a period when there were zero to minimal restrictions.
I'm not sure what California has to do with the point I was making?
Anyway, it's problematic because around half of the total recorded deaths for New York state, for the entire pandemic up to now, likely resulted from infections that happened during the no/minimal restrictions period in March of 2020. Presumably the original poster wanted a "strong restrictions" vs "light restrictions" comparison w.r.t. to deaths. And that's fine; it's just that New York is going to give you a poor starting point for that comparison unless you dive deeper.
Well, NY's numbers don't look good compared to any state except New Jersey's. I think it's probably fair to say that they had a harder job than, say, Vermont or Maine, though, given their population density. Latitude and urban density seem to be better predictors of covid-19 mortality than anything related to human actions (except vaccination rates).
Important question. If NY were a country, it would only rank behind Hungary, Gibraltar, and Czechia for the highest death rate. And it has been that way or worse since April 2020, even as other states and countries had their worst problems later on.
NY and the even-worse-faring NJ are denser and therefore likelier to have higher total infection numbers and deaths than the Plains states. So I wouldn't even accuse them of mismanagement except that this nursing home strategy seems to have been a bad one. However I think the story here is how the media chose their favorite son in this (Cuomo) despite him actually being one of the worst performers. And the TV-news-watching public dutifully ate it up despite clearly contrary data being available on the web from Day 1.
For some reason no one wants to talk about urban density. Comparing populations is not apples to apples.
New York was also the first hit in the world and most medical treatment/handling wasnt really understood when NY got hit with the brunt of the virus in March 2020.
the first reports on this already appeared in august 2020, but somehow all mainstream outlets weren't too interested. They still weren't interested in October when the DOJ sent an inquiry about nursing homes or in January when the NY AG issued a report finding New York under counted deaths of nursing home and long-term care facility residents.
Meanwhile, CNN put him on the air, to be heralded as a great and inspiring leader by his own brother, a CNN mouth piece, that got state funded special treatment when he had covid. Now CNN simply refuses to report on it.
The media landscape is beyond broken in this country.
Also all this took place when he received a multi million dollar advance for his book "American Crisis: Leadership Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic", and remember this crazy thing https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/14/arts/design/cuomo-covid-p... how is any of this real?!?!
Yeah ... I hear otherwise intelligent friends (folks with PhDs, MDs, etc.) effectively parroting crap you would hear on their favorite news channel. You can tell what they watch by listening to what they say.
I think the "smarter" one is, the more gullible they are. As someone with a PhD, I try very hard not to be gullible ... I can't say I always succeed. But I am highly skeptical of everything I hear/read. That skepticism helps.
Being educated != being smart. Intelligence is a biological phenotype of neurological potential. It's distribution is set in stone across humanity. Being lucky and born into a family that can afford your higher education that will grant you a title has nothing to do with biological intelligence. In other words, a lot of very stupid people with PhDs and MDs can parrot mass media like the "low IQ" individuals that they are.
I don’t know if I’d go that far with the set in stone nature.
I’d just say that even if someone is educated well in one field - it doesn’t mean that they’re generally well educated or that they have good critical thinking skills outside of their field. I’m surrounded by PhDs - they’re all great at their field, terrible at everything else. Min/Maxed their stats very hard there.
I believe it has something to do with someones level of "institutionalization", or perhaps, how comfortable they are with institutions and authorities themselves.
A PhD holder is a PhD holder, at least in part, because they trusted that the many 1000's of hours of study and hard work they put into to receive a certificate from an institution was worth it. And this is because they, at some level, trust the institution itself.
Presumably this trust can also transfer to other "authorities", like US cable new media companies.
>I don't see anyone talking about taking that emmy back. Or canceling him.
Look harder then. They're not difficult to find.
When you treat "media" as a monolithic, moving with unified purpose, you're going to make mistakes just like this one.
"media" is diverse enough that you kind people you can disagree with when you look. So it's no doubt true that there is media out there that is defending Cuomo. But that doesn't mean there is some vast conspiracy, or even wide spread collusion, as you seem to be implying.
> But that doesn't mean there is some vast conspiracy, or even wide spread collusion, as you seem to be implying.
Not even close to what I was saying.
And yes, the "media" as in the NBC variants, CNN, CBS, ABC, NPR, etc. seem to all mimic/amplify each others reporting. Doesn't need to be a conspiracy, and I don't think it is.
It is, however, a uniform political and cultural narrative, that actively defends itself from information that runs counter to it. Whether or not there is coordination is irrelevant. That this collection of "media" somehow manages to bury important (real) information, in favor of what they would like to say, is highly problematic for what one might call, actual news.
So no ... to your point, I do not believe the strawman you constructed and then swatted comes anywhere close to what I was specifically talking about. However, denial of the mutual reinforcement and exclusion of information that runs counter to their collective narrative ... that's a deep and fundamental failure of critical thinking.
> And yes, the "media" as in the NBC variants, CNN, CBS, ABC, NPR, etc. seem to all mimic/amplify each others reporting.
TIL by watching multiple DVR-ed news shows from the same night while visiting family...
It is eerie the extent to which the nightly national news stories are the nearly same across the various old networks. With a whole country of stories to pick from the network news is, anecdotally, 80%+ the same many nights. Not only the topics but also the story structure, the chosen sequence of video clips, etc.
It was particularly interesting to observe with respect to the Covington Catholic affair in which the whole of the media apparatus took the exact same still-frame out of context in exactly the same way all the while the actual 2 hour video was widely circulated and freely available on the Internet. For so many media outlets to make the exact same egregious error in such a short timeframe is remarkable. See also the Google Memo fiasco.
The media is as diverse as the set of their independent owners. And what you get from any news channel is the view its owners want to show you. Thinking otherwise is plain naive as I see it.
> I don't see anyone talking about taking that emmy back. Or canceling him.
Weirdly enough I didn't know he was given an Emmy but I have seen wall to wall coverage of the accusations against him and calls for him to resign from dozens of democrat leaders including the Senate Majority Leader.
SNL (pretty much centrist-liberal) has been trashing him on both fronts -- calling out the nursing home deaths on weekend update and even a very long cold open raking him over the coals for the abuse stuff.
Seth Meyers (easily the farthest left network host) has been dragging him hard on both fronts on Late Night as well.
The only opinions I've seen expressed by people in my social media sphere for months are that he's an absolute dirtbag - the man is canceled. I think the real point you are approaching is that most of the time "canceling" someone doesn't really do much.
I’ve noticed this really recently as well, but my conservative friends were pointing this out in 2020 back when he was on air with his brother.
Better late than never and all that, but I don’t see anything noble about waiting to speak out until it becomes politically untenable to wait any longer.
Reminds me of the collective shrug when Trudeau got caught in blackface multiple times. Good thing these guys didn’t do anything truly heinous like cracking their knuckles at work or or advocating for nonviolent protest or throwing their daughter a respectful geisha themed party. There seems to be a pattern in who gets targeted and it doesn’t seem to correlate with the severity of the offense.
This was known in March-April, when he rammed through a bill to give himself emergency powers and one that indemnified nursing home operators -- his donor base.
Don't forget Cuomo making the rounds in April telling people to ignore Trump's scare mongering, that it was perfectly safe to take the subways and catch a show on broadway.
> The media landscape is beyond broken in this country
Your lack of cynicism is admirable. An alternative hypothesis is that it is working as designed; the treatment of the NY governor is a feature not a bug.
I remember reading quite a bit about Cuomo's mistakes last summer in liberal media, but apparently it didn't change the dominant narrative. Here's one article:
Cuomo for all his faults took ownership of the crisis situation.
That’s what leaders are supposed to do, and that is what the public craves. Unfortunately, POTUS just wasn’t capable of filling that function for a variety of reasons.
I think most of those mistakes were understood as the state government was caught unaware and so little was known. We’ve seen similar tragedy in different states and countries — managing a pandemic is difficult.
I can't find it now, but I specifically remember reading an article early in the pandemic making the argument that the political leaders should step back and let public health officials take the spotlight, and pointing to Cuomo as someone who's doing a bad job of this.
'Hitler for all his faults took ownership of the crisis situation.
That's what leaders are supposed to do, and that is what the public craves. Unfortunately, Hindenburg just wasn't capable of filling that function for a variety of reasons.'
>the first reports on this already appeared in august 2020, but somehow all mainstream outlets weren't too interested.
Because it would have diminished the relentless message emanating from almost everywhere that Trump, and Trump alone, was singlehandedly responsible for every single COVID19 death in the US.
> The media landscape is beyond broken in this country.
It has been for a while. Most of the major "news" media organizations are anything but news. That people actually believe what they hear, and then act upon this ... often ... misinformation ... is horrifying. That they have ardent supporters who insist that X really is news while Y is not ... well ... no.
If you want news in the US about the US, listen to BBC America. It is the least biased, narrative embracing, propaganda pushing, site around. There may be others that are workable as news sites. But none from the US.
It's probably true that media companies tend to report more objectively on the affairs of other countries, because the country they're based in will exert more political influence over them.
The BBC is incredibly biased in terms of British affairs, or so I've heard, but it stands to reason that they'd be more willing to be objective about what's going on in America.
We used to pay trained, trusted experts to conduct interviews and discover primary sources; their organization would have independent fact checkers to improve veracity; and the product of their findings was delivered daily to your home.
What's horrifying is that staff in these media advocate for more censorship in the name of battling misinformation. I thought journalist should viciously defend the right of speech, but oh well.
insane, I wonder how many have heard of this for the first time today or are still unaware because the mainstream media never picked it up or is memory-holing this
It is for precisely this reason that I built Read Across The Aisle, [1] a free app that incentivizes you to read news from both sides of the political spectrum.
The coverage bias on both sides is enormous, and there's enough news to cover that it's easy to overlook inconvenient truths (or relegate them to page B-47).
I've started following two sources to help address this for myself.
Tangle is a daily newsletter that provides links to coverage from both sides. VERY fair reporting.
Ground News highlights stories that have been covered by only one side of the aisle.
One reason I see is that people, especially those from mainstream media, will just shrug Daily Wire off as "right-wing". "Right-wing" is such a wonderful stigmata. Quote the words, and gone is pursuit of truth.
The more you dig into it the worse it becomes. There is clearly a “great filter” going on with mainstream media - they decide what is worth reporting on, everything else might as well not have happened. With examples like this one are we surprised people turn to FB for their news and latch onto conspiracy theories?
For HN leftists (I know, I know - that's all of you), you can extrapolate from the Cuomo media suppression to the suppression of the Hunter Biden story, the election fraud, the two fake impeachments, and Joe Biden's senility.
I've looked at cnn.com a few times, and at least their homepage appears to be dictated solely by the left. The hagiography on Kamala Harris a couple days ago looked literally like something the CCP would publish: "Kamala is the last person in the room", etc. I thought VPs were supposed to just golf? Why is Kamala shadowing Biden if he's not senile? (She's in just about every public picture of Biden, standing just behind him.)
For those who don't know what I'm talking about, Twitter has said they regret suppressing the Hunter Biden story before the election, and WaPo issued a retraction on their quote of Trump asking an election official to redo results (that quote was one of the Pelosi's "reasons" for the second impeachment.)
This was fist reported as early as May 2020 in the dailycaller - so-called extreme right wing media and "fact-checked" by the MSM as lies and ring-wing propaganda.
Search #nuremburg2021 on Twitter. There is fairly robust group of people who consider reactions to covid 19 crimes against humanity and they are seeking trials against everyone involved.
Fucking knew this guy was a fraud. The fact that any time anything was going poorly he'd pop up on TV and talk to his brother (who'd then tell him to talk to their Mom) was the giveaway.
It was some straight up panem et circenses shite. People ate up that wholesome talk-to-mum shite. Fucking knew it.
Then he'd periodically make some snarky anti-Trump remark to rally the troops. Very suspicious. Not like I'm upset by the remark, but if you're trying to pander to me, I start to question.
33% of all US Covid deaths have happened in nursing homes. Those 180,000+ deaths happened across the country. Some of the earliest US deaths happened in a Seattle nursing home. Some other early death clusters happened in VA hospitals. This is a public and private national disgrace, not just a Cuomo one.
Cuomo didn't create our 'standards' for warehousing the elderly. We did that as a society.
169 comments
[ 4.6 ms ] story [ 245 ms ] threadhttps://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/cuomo-top-aide-reportedly-...
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cuomo-nursing-home-deaths-total...
He knowingly sent people with covid into nursing homes against the will of the people running them, even though that's how the first major outbreak happened in Washington state. He then covered it all up by trying to attribute the deaths to hospitals. Then stonewalled the Feds asking for information about those deaths. His aide admitted to it. He should be in jail. He killed at least 15,000 people as a direct result of his orders.
I just hope they investigate the other 5 governors that sent the people with covid back into nursing homes.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/five-governors-cuomo...
They should have all known. This is how it all started, it seems deliberate. Cover-up or not, they are all either dangerously incompetent or malicious.
Now, the post-facto coverup, that doesn't deserve any benefit of the doubt. That's just sleaze and corruption.
That was when we were still counting the first hundred and contact tracing.
The people running the homes dissented against it. He still did it.
It doesn't take a genius to know you will infect elderly people by sending a highly contagious disease into their facility.
The cover up is beyond despicable, but the original action is indefensible.
Either properly supply your nursing homes with PPE or bring the nursing home staff to the hospitals.
The PPE that was acutely in short supply and unavailable at the beginning of the pandemic? Even doctors and nurses didn't have adequate PPE back then, and many of them got sick and died because of it.
Source of people dying due to lack of PPE?
As I understand it, there was always a low supply, not no supply.
Other states managed to supply their nursing homes just fine.
Seems like rationalization. Cuomo never came out and said this was caused by lack of PPE.
Unless you have a source that they weren't able to equip their nursing homes due to supply issues you are assuming.
Everyone was panicking that the epidemic would grow exponentially and the hospitals would get over-run. Hence freeing up beds, and building a bunch of eventually pointless overflow hospitals.
A lot of modelling was claiming that's exactly what would happen, e.g. Imperial College London claiming millions of deaths, while the actual infection curves never hit those numbers.
In hindsight, that's not how the virus works, it seems to infect clusters and then drops and eventually levels out, jumps to a new clusters does the same thing, and on.
Because we took action to avoid that.
I truly don't understand why people keep repeating such dezinformatsiya.
Those projections were still wildly off the mark. There is no way to look at their projections and take them seriously as modelers. They were simply wrong. They made bad parameter assumptions, didn't question their results or cross-validate, and ran with the scariest projections of their models.
https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/in-defense-of-mathema...
"For those readers who are unfamiliar with it, the Imperial College model is the one that projected that 2.2 million Americans (and 510,000 residents of the UK) could die from COVID-19 over the next two years without public health interventions."
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01003-6
"When updated data in the Imperial team’s model indicated that the United Kingdom’s health service would soon be overwhelmed with severe cases of COVID-19, and might face more than 500,000 deaths if the government took no action... The same model suggested that, with no action, the United States might face 2.2 million deaths..."
Here's the March 26, 2020 report, covering the rest of the world, with far more specific predictions:
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/m...
In this report, they predict 2.2 million deaths in the US in the unmitigated scenario, and over 1 million in the "social distancing" scenario. Their projection if the US "suppressed" the virus (by uniformly cutting contacts by 75% as soon as the death rate exceeded 1.6 per 100k; by my math, that's about 5,000 deaths) was 474,000 dead.
So, uh...that was wrong.
They projected 40 million deaths, worldwide (current actual total 3.14M) in the unmitigated scenario, with between 1.9M and 10.5M deaths in the "total suppression" scenario (depending on how soon lockdowns occurred).
If you go to the spreadsheet [1], you'll see lots of other fun projections:
* 470,000-670,000 deaths in Japan in the "social distancing" scenarios (current total: 10,031, despite living mostly normally throughout 2020).
* 330k-740k deaths in the "social distancing" scenarios for France (620k-760k "unmitigated"; current total: just over 3M, despite a year of strict interventions).
* Let's not forget their projection of 60,000-90,000 deaths in Sweden, in the "unmitigated" scenario (current total: 13,968).
Overall, their predictions bear very little resemblance to reality.
[1] https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/s...
Okay. And the revised reports?
This is why, in most fields of modeling with any intellectual rigor, we have blinded prospective tests.
Also, after the death toll rolled in they deleted the executive order from the New York State website despite it still being in effect.
There was a cover up from the moment the order was issued, I'm not sure how this action was taken in good faith.
Writing a book about his supposed epic handling of the virus.
Still in office.
Regardless of your political persuasion what Cuomo did is wrong by covering it up. We can't have 2 standards for politicians based on if it is someone on your team.
I can forgive bad decisions in a time of crisis. But what they did was way beyond that.
Don't mean to be aggressive but where else would you like for the people whose domicile is in the nursing home to go? These are not people in independent living facilities, they likely need 24/7 skilled care. Allowing the people to go back to the nursing home (aka their home) seemed like the right thing to do at the time. It unfortunately didn't play out so well and I am glad I wasn't the one making that decision.
I think it was a tough decision. The nursing homes could have contained the spread but clearly were incapable of doing so.
> Then stonewalled the Feds asking for information about those deaths.
No excuse for that, just lay it all out. The stonewalling was intentional and possibly illegal, he should answer for that.
Send more non-covid patients to them, keep elderly patients in the hospitals. New York never reached full capacity overall.
If you MUST send covid patients to nursing homes, make sure they are prepared with PPE.
Other states did so, Cuomo and the 5 other governors should have known to do so. We already had outbreaks in a nursing home that everyone was aware of.
I don't want to play politics and I do think more could have been done here). Like: quickly granting nursing homes aid in terms of PPE + cash + national guard help. I'm just trying to change your mind that the situation was much more nuanced that the NYTimes is advocating for.
the whole colored tier system was a farcical distraction from real mitigations like quarantining nursing homes and their staff who'd volunteer for 24-hour hero pay and 2-week on-off cycles (long enough to recuperate and re-quarantine), and asking people to distance indoors around familiars, which is where most transmission happens, rather than around strangers or out on the street where your silly mask-wearing does less than nothing. 90% of angelenos, by my anecdotal count, still wear masks outdoors, as if it were a talisman against impending death.
despite unceasing media howling, our infection rates held relatively steady for a year, until recently, when vaccinations finally started to have a real effect on those rates. none of that (double-)mask-wearing, excessive hand-sanitizing, overly restrictive retail-closing, and incessant surface-disinfecting propounded by the state/county/city did anything to mitigate spread, only modest distancing indoors and restricted interfamilial contact had much mitigative effect (and the latter could have been handled much less invasively and damagingly).
i'm decidedly unamused by the stupidity of it all and ready for new leadership of any stripe other than democrat or republican.
After they left the hospital they needed somewhere to go. Otherwise, they would be homeless.
If nursing homes couldn’t safely take recovering patients back then people were in danger before these people left for the hospital.
I also imagine there were COVID patients in the homes who didn’t need to go to a hospital
Before Washington state we had the clear data from the elderly homes in Bergamo Italy where they made the exact same mistake over a month earlier with catastrophic results. Before that we knew from the Wuhan data that CV19 is a highly asymmetric threat and it was critical to protect elderly and immuno-compromised.
The history is still to be written but the U.S. policy choice to go with broad lockdowns of everyone instead of the "focused protection" plan may go down as the worst public health error of modern times. Since they were hit hard and first, Hubei Province and Northern Italy at least have the excuse of no priors. By the time NY got hit any serious analyst knew and many were recommending circling the wagons around the vulnerable.
I have no idea if fault lies with Cuomo personally or someone he delegated this to, but someone in NY seriously fucked up. Hell, in Bergamo prosecutors filed charges against some city/regional administrators for negligent manslaughter (or similar).
Sweden also deserves credit for getting the public health policy right. They had the right plan but have admitted they could have done better in some of the early execution phase around protecting elder facilities. 7
The opposite, I thought -- he seemed to be weathering the nursing home scandal, and now the sex scandal seems to be taking him down. Before his sexual behavior was publicized, people were joking/not joking that Andrew Cuomo was the poster child for our (Democrats') inability to hold anyone accountable for anything as long as they seemed woke and likable and said all the right things on cultural issues. Then his sexual behavior hit the news, and it was like, wow, is there anything metoo can't do? At least now Democrats nationally want him gone, though it's always harder to get a popular politician's own constituents to turn against him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
However, I would have throw in much more aid to the ones that were forced. Cash + PPE + National Guard. If I couldn't provide help, then I wouldn't force. That would mean that it would be up to the hospitals to figure it out and find a home for them or until they were covid-free.
Obviously I'm playing backseat Covid response governor here. Hindsight is 20/20.
> The effort by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo’s office to obscure the pandemic death toll in New York nursing homes was far greater than previously known, with aides repeatedly overruling state health officials over a span of at least five months, according to interviews and newly unearthed documents.
Sounds like this one got suppressed according to the article.
> someone who thinks this one got suppressed probably has an information diet that disproportionately focused attention on this screw up in order to shift attention away from their own screw up, which was orders of magnitude larger.
This is whataboutism. The article is about Cuomo's bad response to COVID regarding nursing homes.
With regard to obscuring the death toll, I agree, and Cuomo needs to be dealt with.
With regard to prioritizing this story against it's competitor, however, I think my information diet got the mix about right, which is to say in proportion to impact.
> This is whataboutism.
If we were just talking about Cuomo, sure -- but you brought up information diets and suppression, which absolutely brings into scope the nonstop 24/7 Republican efforts to use the Cuomo story as whataboutism.
Your questions above propose the idea of bias in the information delivery and reception, which inherently maps to political partisanship. What other sort of bias could your questions possibly evoke?
Cuomo was exposed and has been condemned largely by officials within his own party, and also broadly by the media, whether left, right, or center.
The really sick thing as that this sudden influx of give-a-shits is sending the message that "the party will back you if you kill people so long as you don't lose a house seat in the process" which is not a great message to be sending.
How did the body count turn into a house seat exactly? There are dozens of ways that New York's population count could have gone 89 in either direction and changed the house seat allocation. At those small margins, it's basically a coin toss.
The deaths are arguably far less consequential than the effect of people leaving the state to move away from the early impact of the pandemic and into remote work scenarios.
Correct, but for the nursing home residents and their families that too little too late. I first read about this last summer as the nursing home rules began to take effect. At the time the party and media were too busy holding Cuomo up as an anti-Trumpian figure. They gave him an Emmy and cute nicknames while this happened. It is all just a little too much for me.
Howie Carr was talking about it around the same period as NPR. For folks outside of New England, he is a right wing radio host but he puts a spin on actual news rather than just making up garbage.
What credible source was talking about this before January?
I don't remember exactly where I heard it first, but I googled and found this US News & World Report story about it from July 14, 2020:
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-07-14/...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAh4uS4f78o
One has to be crazy to believe anything from the right wing media after things like that which are just a tip of the iceberg of lies they regularly spread. They did it to themselves.
I know it doesn't jive with the narrative. Neither of these two could be even remotely construed to be "right wing".
[1] https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/nancy-pelosi-visits-sa...
[2] https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/01/31/8016865...
It is probably easier to ask which major news sources were not talking about this prior to January.
You can easily find articles posted prior to January from The Association Press, Fox News, CNN, Daily Wire, NY Post, Daily Mail, Daily Caller, Washington Times, The Federalist, USA Today, etc. Many of those sites had articles back in May.
It was only later that we discovered that he actively fudged the numbers by not counting nursing home patients that died in hospitals.
Here is an article from the Washington Post back in August 2020
> New York’s coronavirus death toll in nursing homes, already among the highest in the nation, could actually be a significant undercount. Unlike every other state with major outbreaks, New York only counts residents who died on nursing home property and not those who were transported to hospitals and died there.
> That statistic could add thousands to the state’s official care home death toll of just over 6,600. But so far the administration of Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo has refused to divulge the number, leading to speculation the state is manipulating the figures to make it appear it is doing better than other states and to make a tragic situation less dire.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/new-yorks-true-nursing...
This whole reportage stinks of "We Have Always Been At War With Eastasia" to me at the moment.
[1] https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/03/florida-covid-19-dea...
https://twitter.com/natesilver538/status/1387096352845225984...
And the article that I linked to quoted a study that used excess death numbers and compared those to the official counts. That is by far the best method to estimate an undercount.
As far as information consumption goes, though, I think if anything I've consumed too much. I don't live in NY and the stuff happening there has no relevance to me.
You can see that here. In the downvotes.
http://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/
Cases per capita: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109004/coronavirus-covi...
Attribution to lockdown or not is insufficient to determine these numbers. Mask adherence, population size, and climate are also important.
Top 10 deaths per capita are dominated by New England and Southern states
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_terr...
These two factors are key, in my opinion. Infection rates and deaths fell dramatically in the NE after a better understanding of how to treat COVID was gained, after mitigations for spread were implemented, and after the spring. Those rates also stayed relatively low for the remainder of the pandemic compared to other states, as well.
My grandfather, along with many of the other patients, died in one of these places from COVID in Massachusetts last May.
He was in a physical rehab following heart surgery to fix damage from a botched pacemaker installation. The family spent most of January -> March getting the equipment and reworking his house so he could be cared for at home, but he caught COVID before it was ready. He was in critical condition for 2 months until he finally passed. The real kick in the gut that he was considered "COVID free" for the last two weeks but the damage to his lungs was too great.
My grandmother was able to be with him when he died, holding his hand in a hazmat suit...
I don't think I've ever read an HN post that made me cry like that.
What I'm getting at is that, if you want to use New York as a test comparison for loose vs tight restrictions, you're going to have a much deeper analysis to do, and a large portion of the deaths in New York were effectively resulting from a period when there were zero to minimal restrictions.
Anyway, it's problematic because around half of the total recorded deaths for New York state, for the entire pandemic up to now, likely resulted from infections that happened during the no/minimal restrictions period in March of 2020. Presumably the original poster wanted a "strong restrictions" vs "light restrictions" comparison w.r.t. to deaths. And that's fine; it's just that New York is going to give you a poor starting point for that comparison unless you dive deeper.
NY and the even-worse-faring NJ are denser and therefore likelier to have higher total infection numbers and deaths than the Plains states. So I wouldn't even accuse them of mismanagement except that this nursing home strategy seems to have been a bad one. However I think the story here is how the media chose their favorite son in this (Cuomo) despite him actually being one of the worst performers. And the TV-news-watching public dutifully ate it up despite clearly contrary data being available on the web from Day 1.
New York was also the first hit in the world and most medical treatment/handling wasnt really understood when NY got hit with the brunt of the virus in March 2020.
Meanwhile, CNN put him on the air, to be heralded as a great and inspiring leader by his own brother, a CNN mouth piece, that got state funded special treatment when he had covid. Now CNN simply refuses to report on it.
The media landscape is beyond broken in this country.
https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/1...
And he published a fucking book in October: https://www.amazon.com/American-Crisis-Leadership-COVID-19-P...
Broken doesn't even begin to describe it....
Also all this took place when he received a multi million dollar advance for his book "American Crisis: Leadership Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic", and remember this crazy thing https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/14/arts/design/cuomo-covid-p... how is any of this real?!?!
I think the "smarter" one is, the more gullible they are. As someone with a PhD, I try very hard not to be gullible ... I can't say I always succeed. But I am highly skeptical of everything I hear/read. That skepticism helps.
I’d just say that even if someone is educated well in one field - it doesn’t mean that they’re generally well educated or that they have good critical thinking skills outside of their field. I’m surrounded by PhDs - they’re all great at their field, terrible at everything else. Min/Maxed their stats very hard there.
It's a stone that will only be moved by future technology. Perhaps a mastery of biology/neurology or more. Until then, it is essentially unchangeable.
A PhD holder is a PhD holder, at least in part, because they trusted that the many 1000's of hours of study and hard work they put into to receive a certificate from an institution was worth it. And this is because they, at some level, trust the institution itself.
Presumably this trust can also transfer to other "authorities", like US cable new media companies.
He has like 7 credible assault victims accusing him. And the "media" protects him.
Riddle me that. His ass should have been out on the sidewalk a long time ago.
The "media" is complicit.
Look harder then. They're not difficult to find.
When you treat "media" as a monolithic, moving with unified purpose, you're going to make mistakes just like this one.
"media" is diverse enough that you kind people you can disagree with when you look. So it's no doubt true that there is media out there that is defending Cuomo. But that doesn't mean there is some vast conspiracy, or even wide spread collusion, as you seem to be implying.
Not even close to what I was saying.
And yes, the "media" as in the NBC variants, CNN, CBS, ABC, NPR, etc. seem to all mimic/amplify each others reporting. Doesn't need to be a conspiracy, and I don't think it is.
It is, however, a uniform political and cultural narrative, that actively defends itself from information that runs counter to it. Whether or not there is coordination is irrelevant. That this collection of "media" somehow manages to bury important (real) information, in favor of what they would like to say, is highly problematic for what one might call, actual news.
So no ... to your point, I do not believe the strawman you constructed and then swatted comes anywhere close to what I was specifically talking about. However, denial of the mutual reinforcement and exclusion of information that runs counter to their collective narrative ... that's a deep and fundamental failure of critical thinking.
TIL by watching multiple DVR-ed news shows from the same night while visiting family...
It is eerie the extent to which the nightly national news stories are the nearly same across the various old networks. With a whole country of stories to pick from the network news is, anecdotally, 80%+ the same many nights. Not only the topics but also the story structure, the chosen sequence of video clips, etc.
Weirdly enough I didn't know he was given an Emmy but I have seen wall to wall coverage of the accusations against him and calls for him to resign from dozens of democrat leaders including the Senate Majority Leader.
SNL (pretty much centrist-liberal) has been trashing him on both fronts -- calling out the nursing home deaths on weekend update and even a very long cold open raking him over the coals for the abuse stuff.
Seth Meyers (easily the farthest left network host) has been dragging him hard on both fronts on Late Night as well.
The only opinions I've seen expressed by people in my social media sphere for months are that he's an absolute dirtbag - the man is canceled. I think the real point you are approaching is that most of the time "canceling" someone doesn't really do much.
Better late than never and all that, but I don’t see anything noble about waiting to speak out until it becomes politically untenable to wait any longer.
Emmys are usually given for works of fiction.
A large swath of the media was busy at the time trying to put Cuomo on a pedestal as a kind of counter-Trump.
https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/0...
As did The NY Times:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/28/nyregion/nursing-home-dea...
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/28/us/new-york-nursing-homes-cov...
Your lack of cynicism is admirable. An alternative hypothesis is that it is working as designed; the treatment of the NY governor is a feature not a bug.
- Avenatti
- Cuomo
- Lincoln Project
Not too confident about Fauci and Schiff.
Democrats gave a hero’s welcome to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo despite his mistake-filled early response to the coronavirus pandemic. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/08/cuomo-n...
That’s what leaders are supposed to do, and that is what the public craves. Unfortunately, POTUS just wasn’t capable of filling that function for a variety of reasons.
I think most of those mistakes were understood as the state government was caught unaware and so little was known. We’ve seen similar tragedy in different states and countries — managing a pandemic is difficult.
That's what leaders are supposed to do, and that is what the public craves. Unfortunately, Hindenburg just wasn't capable of filling that function for a variety of reasons.'
Means do not justify ends.
Because it would have diminished the relentless message emanating from almost everywhere that Trump, and Trump alone, was singlehandedly responsible for every single COVID19 death in the US.
It has been for a while. Most of the major "news" media organizations are anything but news. That people actually believe what they hear, and then act upon this ... often ... misinformation ... is horrifying. That they have ardent supporters who insist that X really is news while Y is not ... well ... no.
If you want news in the US about the US, listen to BBC America. It is the least biased, narrative embracing, propaganda pushing, site around. There may be others that are workable as news sites. But none from the US.
The BBC is incredibly biased in terms of British affairs, or so I've heard, but it stands to reason that they'd be more willing to be objective about what's going on in America.
Corporate media hates that system.
We are simply unable to learn from even the recent past. Every generation has to personally try every bad idea to figure out why its a bad idea.
Actually, it was covered in May of 2020 in the Daily Wire.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/ny-health-dept-admits-to-unde...
The coverage bias on both sides is enormous, and there's enough news to cover that it's easy to overlook inconvenient truths (or relegate them to page B-47).
1: http://www.readacrosstheaisle.com
Tangle is a daily newsletter that provides links to coverage from both sides. VERY fair reporting. Ground News highlights stories that have been covered by only one side of the aisle.
https://www.readtangle.com/ https://ground.news/
Yet he may well stay in office. It's a one-party state, if his allies in the party hold the line it'll all blow over.
I've looked at cnn.com a few times, and at least their homepage appears to be dictated solely by the left. The hagiography on Kamala Harris a couple days ago looked literally like something the CCP would publish: "Kamala is the last person in the room", etc. I thought VPs were supposed to just golf? Why is Kamala shadowing Biden if he's not senile? (She's in just about every public picture of Biden, standing just behind him.)
https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/25/politics/kamala-harris-cnntv/...
For those who don't know what I'm talking about, Twitter has said they regret suppressing the Hunter Biden story before the election, and WaPo issued a retraction on their quote of Trump asking an election official to redo results (that quote was one of the Pelosi's "reasons" for the second impeachment.)
https://nypost.com/2021/03/25/dorsey-says-blocking-posts-hun...
https://nypost.com/2021/03/15/washington-post-runs-correctio...
The more you compare the MSM with actual events, the less they match.
https://twitter.com/DailyCaller/status/1356655957976244225 https://dailycaller.com/2020/05/15/new-york-coronavirus-repo...
I personally know one of these people.
It was some straight up panem et circenses shite. People ate up that wholesome talk-to-mum shite. Fucking knew it.
Then he'd periodically make some snarky anti-Trump remark to rally the troops. Very suspicious. Not like I'm upset by the remark, but if you're trying to pander to me, I start to question.
Cuomo didn't create our 'standards' for warehousing the elderly. We did that as a society.