The evidence doesn't absolve Trump for the high US COVID death rate

Jim Geraghty argues in a National Review op-ed that we shouldn't blame Trump for the fact that the US has one of the highest coronavirus death rates in the world. But though he's right that not everything is Trump's fault, Ian Bremmer and Eurasia Group analyst Scott Rosenstein take out The Red Pen to show that the evidence he cites to let Trump off the hook doesn't hold water.

Today we are taking our Red Pen to an op-ed entitled "Why the U.S. Ranks So Poorly in Coronavirus Deaths Per Million." A very straightforward title for an oped. It was written by senior political correspondent Jim Geraghty of the National Review.

The US ranks in the top ten in per capita death rates, with as of this recording, roughly 488 deaths per million. And Geraghty argues that we shouldn't blame Trump for the fact that the US has one of the highest coronavirus death rates in the world. Now, he's right that not everything is Trump's fault, I've made that point many times myself, but the evidence that he cites doesn't actually let Trump off the hook. So, let's dive in.

First, Geraghty are argues the coronavirus data from other countries are greatly underreported and that their actual deaths per capita might be as high or higher than the United States. He cites Indonesia, China, Russia and Bangladesh. It's safe to say that pretty much every country in the world is undercounting Covid case rates and death rate for a variety of factors like insufficient testing and plain old corruption. And the United States is no doubt, undercounting, too. But let's do the math: the US has reported, so far, about 160,000 deaths out of a population of 330 million. China has confirmed about 4,000 deaths with about 1.4 billion people. Now, very few outside observers, myself included, trust that China's numbers are accurate. But to come close to US deaths per capita, China would have to be, have them reported elsewhere, some 700,000 deaths. I mean, are we really ready to suggest that China's missed or are covering up 700,000 deaths? That's kind of insane, right? I mean, even for China, that's a crazy tall order. So, no.

Next, Geraghty writes that other countries held advantages over the US that left them better prepared to fight the pandemic, including more experience with SARS and other disease outbreaks. And I need to push back against this. The reality is the United States was in the best possible position to handle this pandemic. We have the best scientists, the best labs, and many billions of dollars a year since SARS - more than any other country - invested in pandemic preparedness. Other countries, particularly in Southeast Asia, did have a lot of experience with past disease outbreaks, but they had nowhere near the resources of Washington, DC. There are many reasons the US handled coronavirus terribly, but a lack of resources and a lack of planning for this kind of pandemic is really not one of them.

And then finally, Geraghty suggests that blame should be spread out to include other leaders whose decisions were off the mark early. And I completely agree that leaders at all levels of American government made mistakes early on, when information was scant, including governors like my own Andrew Cuomo in New York. And certainly, the decision to reduce hospital strain and order nursing homes to take coronavirus patients early in the pandemic was a tragic mistake that led to unnecessary deaths. Almost half of the deaths in the New York City metropolitan area were in assisted living facilities. Did not need to happen. You can't blame Trump for that. But what matters is whether leaders can change course as new information emerges and avoid politicizing science. And that's where President Trump has come up short, time and again. As the pandemic continues to rage across the United States, it's become painfully clear that the federal government failed to put together a national coordinated response. And as president of the United States, the buck and ultimately the deaths per capita, stops with the commander in chief.

That's our Red Pen this week. I hope you found this worthwhile. I'll see you again soon. In the meantime, stay safe and avoid people.

That's Bank of America's new target in its Environmental Business Initiative in order to accelerate the transition to a low-carbon, sustainable economy.

Here's how it will drive innovation to address climate change.

On Tuesday, a major US intelligence report said the top threat to America right now is China. A day later, John Kerry, the Biden administration's "climate czar," got on a plane to... China.

Such is the drama of ties between the world's two largest economies these days.

More Show less

Should the Biden administration "reverse course on China" in the hope of establishing a friendlier relationship, as diplomat Kishore Mahbubani argues in a recent Financial Times op-ed? Ian Bremmer and Eurasia Group analyst Michael Hirson take out the Red Pen to explain why it's not that simple.

And today, we are talking about the United States and China. The relationship between the two most powerful nations in the world is the worst it's been since the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989. Pundits and policymakers alike all around the world are trying to figure out how Washington and Beijing can at least stop the bleeding because a reset is nowhere in the cards.

That's the topic of the op-ed that we are looking at today. It's from the Financial Times, written by Singaporean diplomat Kishore Mahbubani, and the title summarizes the key argument: "Biden should summon the courage to reverse course on China." Meaning, he should throw out the Trump era approach and open the door to more cooperation and kinder, gentler relations.

More Show less

More than a dozen COVID-19 vaccines have been fully approved or are currently in early use globally, and COVAX, the global initiative started last year by the World Health Organization and other partners, is pushing for equitable access to vaccines for all. But most of the half billion jabs given so far have gone to citizens of wealthy countries, with half going to the US and China alone. What's the problem with so-called vaccine nationalism? Ian Bremmer explains that besides the clear humanitarian concerns, the continued global spread of COVID increases the risk of new mutations and variants that can threaten the entire world, vaccinated or not.

Watch the episode: Vaccine nationalism could prolong the pandemic

Should wealthy individuals and nations shoulder more of the burden in addressing climate change? Pulitzer Prize-winning climate journalist Elizabeth Kolbert argues that Big Tech leaders like Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk should shift more of their focus to fighting for our own planet's survival, instead of space exploration. "We're doing as much as we can to make life difficult on planet Earth for ourselves. But there's virtually nothing we could do to make it as difficult as life on Mars, where there's, among other things, no oxygen." Kolbert, the author of Under a White Sky, discusses why it's so crucial for a few rich countries to bear most of the climate burden, since they're also the biggest emitters. Her conversation with Ian Bremmer is featured in the upcoming episode of GZERO World, airing on US public television stations starting this Friday, April 16. Check local listings.

In recent days, Northern Ireland has seen some of its worst street violence in over a decade. The anger has subsided a bit this week, but post-Brexit fears leave many uncertain about their future in a deeply divided land with a long history of political violence between Irish republicans and UK unionists.

More Show less

Fighting climate change is about making the planet get less hot. The more quickly countries slow down their carbon emissions, the faster that'll happen. All the more important for the nations that pollute the most — but not all of them are on board. Although the majority, including China, are setting future targets to go Net Zero, India doesn't want to commit (yet) to when to stop burning fossil fuels to spur economic growth. We take a look at when the world's top polluting economies intend to go carbon-neutral, compared with their share of global emissions, of renewable energy as a source of electricity, and percentage of global coal consumption.

Peruvian runoff: Perú's presidential election is going to a runoff in June between two surprise and polarizing contenders, each of whom won less than 20 percent of votes in a highly fragmented first round. Pedro Castillo, a far-left union leader and teacher who benefited from a late surge in the polls, will battle rightwing populist Keiko Fujimori, daughter of the country's imprisoned former strongman. Castillo wants to rewrite the constitution to weaken the political influence of the country's business elite and maybe to allow the state to nationalize parts of the mining sector to pay for social programs for the poor. Fujimori wants to use mining revenues to create jobs by investing in infrastructure and healthcare. The runoff will probably be a national referendum on Fujimori, a divisive figure running for the top job for the third time. No Peruvian president has ever left office without facing corruption charges, but Fujimori already faces several — and she'll avoid jail time if she wins.

More Show less

Subscribe to GZERO Media's newsletter, Signal

The GZERO World Podcast with Ian Bremmer. Listen now.


Subscribe to GZERO Media's newsletter: Signal