Year: 2020

The political climate in the United States is becoming increasingly hostile. In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic and response, presidential election, and movement to challenge police brutality are polarizing the country. Each of these bring their own health and economic concerns as well as a feeling of instability.

As of September 2020, in America there have been some 6.7 million COVID-19 cases and nearly 200 thousand deaths due to COVID-19 according to the WHO. The stay-at-home orders and mask mandates issued to curb the spread have faced political and public scrutiny. Some of the lockdowns prompted protests. In Michigan, hundreds of people, many openly armed, gathered at the state capitol building to call for the reopening of businesses. The Pew Research Center has reported growing division between Democrats and Republicans on many COVID-related topics including the perception of disease risk, opinions on measures used to reduce the spread of COVID-19, and the confidence in medical science.

The presidential election is also increasing political tensions. President Donald Trump has said that his main opponent, Joe Biden, wants to “take away your guns, destroy your Second Amendment, no religion, no anything, hurt the Bible, hurt God,” even though Biden is a practicing Catholic. On the other side of the aisle, Biden has said that Trump’s reaction to COVID-19 was “almost criminal” and caused Americans to die. With this rhetoric, it’s unsurprising that 54% of Democrats and 52% of Republicans “said the opposing party was so misguided as to be actually dangerous”. Speakers at both presidential conventions earlier this year did little to assuage those fears, arguing that their opponents represented an existential threat to the country.

The country is also facing civil unrest after George Floyd’s death while in police custody. Since his death, there have been protests in at least 140 cities around the United States, some lasting more than one day. Minneapolis, the city where Floyd was killed, has reported that at least $55 million in damages occurred over the course of the protests in that city alone. Killings by police are continuing to be caught on camera. After Jacob Blake was shot 7 times by police in August, protests increased sometimes drawing counter-protesters. Two protestors were killed by a 17-year-old in Kenosha, Wisconsin during these demonstrations. There are also political divides about whether systematic racism is a problem in America with the gap between the two sides growing.

Politics and partisan ideology have been creating a hostile environment, and the events of 2020 have solidified it. Their combination has led to increasing instability, frustration, and fear among the American people. When people believe that the other political party actively wants to do them and the country harm, it is nearly impossible to have a reasonable debate.

On August 15, 2020, David L. Cook, Sr., beloved husband, father, grandfather, and brother peacefully passed away at age 69 at his Culpeper home.

David was born on September 22, 1950 to William W. “Bill” Cook and Eva “Kate” (Perciful) Cook at Fort Carson, Colorado. Being the middle child – having an older sister, Lucy, and a younger sister, Kathy – David was blessed with a steadfast, compassionate insight for the human condition; one that would become his trademark in life.

David graduated from Wichita State University with a Bachelor’s Degree in History in 1972 and was commissioned a Second Lieutenant in the United States Army the same year. He attended the Naval Post Graduate School and the Command and General Staff College. During his 23-year Army career, David served as an infantryman, aviator, and military intelligence analyst specializing in both North and South Korea. His last assignment was as the installation commander for Fort Indiantown Gap, PA. Upon retirement, he served as director for the Army Heritage Center Foundation in Carlisle, PA, then as the Defense Intelligence Agency’s logistics and facilities manager for Rivanna Station, VA. He retired from that position at the end of May.

In addition to his government service, David was an adjunct professor in the Masters in Public Administration program at Clemson University. He was instrumental in helping to develop the program, and is credited with building the Homeland Defense and Security Specialization area. David taught a series of online courses on national and cyber security issues for over a decade. He also was an avid musician, having earlier been a member of the Hershey (PA) Symphony Orchestra and Big Band for many years.

David is survived by his adoring wife, Charlotte Cole of Culpeper; a son, David Cook, Jr. of Colorado Springs, CO; two granddaughters, Madison Pallante of Mechanicsburg, PA, and Kylie Harris of Montgomery, AL; Charlotte’s daughter, Emilie Cole of San Francisco, CA; and Charlotte’s son, James Cole of Washington, DC.

Those wishing to commemorate David’s extraordinary life may consider one of the following “good works” in lieu of flowers:
The James Madison Memorial Foundation, 129 Caroline Street, Orange, VA 22960
The Free Clinic of Culpeper: 610 Laurel St., Suite 3, Culpeper, VA 22701
Clemson University MPA Student Achievement Account – Dept 5735: Clemson University Gift Management Department, P.O. Box 1889, Clemson, SC 29633
Culpeper Food Closet: c/o St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church, 115 North East Street, Culpeper, VA 22701
Hershey Symphony Orchestra: P.O. Box 93, Hershey, PA 17033
An online guest book and tribute wall are available at www.foundandsons.com. Found and Sons in Culpeper is serving the family.

Our American policing industry has a self-induced identity problem: it sees itself first as an enforcement business not as a crime prevention and order maintenance public service. American policing has adopted an overarching enforcement approach and a “thin blue line” perspective, both of which are unhealthy for a democracy. A culture defined by compliance, arrests, and a defensive perspective of exclusion is destined to alienate those who are policed. It also eclipses officers who run into burning buildings and dive into raging rivers. It is time for the policing industry to do a self-check.

The enforcement centerpiece of American policing has done one thing well: delegitimization of American policing in communities of color. Those communities, unlike my neighborhood, do not trust the police (though, they want to). Gated communities get police services, communities of color get law enforcement. The difference? Legitimacy. Albert Einstein and M.L. King recognized the role of justice and equity in peace—is it time for others to do so?

Both men placed responsibility for peace in government. Einstein said it with scientific economy, “Peace is the presence of government.” Sir Robert Peel recognized the essence of the values that inform this thought when he published his policing principles in 1829.

Peel, who influenced the formation of American policing, is now a footnote, replaced by zero tolerance enforcement and compliance. For brevity, I will modernize, paraphrase, and truncate Peel:

Prevent crime and disorder instead of relying on repressive enforcement; policing derives its authority from public approval and sustained public respect; policing must have the willing cooperation of the public to function; there is a negative correlation between public cooperation and the use of force and compulsion to achieve police objectives; obtain public respect through impartial and unbiased application of the law; apply physical force only after exhausting verbal persuasion and only to the minimum amount needed to achieve public order; the police are the public and the public is the police; be a dispassionate and competent fact gatherer, leave adjudication to the courts; and recognize that police proficiency is demonstrated by the lack of crime and disorder, not the presence of enforcement activities.

These nine principles were premised on three key values:

Successful policing equals a low crime rate, not a high arrest rate; crime prevention requires the participation and trust of the public; and public support is derived from ethical conduct, hiring people who accept ethical responsibility in the performance of policing, and purposeful application of persuasion and empathy before resorting to force.

Peel recognized that compliance and enforcement affronted dignity and kindled the fire of resentment (use enforcement sparingly). Peel’s principles even foreshadowed the spirit of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, 34 year later: “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” How have we strayed so far off course?

Much of the answer lies in the policing industry’s equivocation with ethics. Ethically based decisions and policies require concerted and deliberative processes that weigh procedural fairness, consideration of disparate impact, and equanimity. There is a democratic element to ethically informed policing. Instead, police executives acquiesced to, and police unions chose, the “thin blue line” of enforcement and temporized over their affirmative responsibility to forthrightly participate in transparent planning processes that solve problems. In sum, policing ethics were marginalized. Our policing industry has used 25 years of community policing to mask continued entrenchment of an enforcement and compliance culture. Are we to believe that the status quo is fine but for minor modifications?

The policing industry has been waging war on drugs since 1985 and on terrorism from 2001. The war on drugs is a complete failure but it has entrenched civil forfeiture, pretext car stops, stop and frisk, no knock warrants, 4 am raids, and prison as the normative functions of police. The war on terror has eroded civil liberties and militarized police culture. The American policing industry has adopted all the negative attributes as normative functions—said another way, as what police do. Perhaps, making policing more about ethically informed public service and less about trendy authoritarian fads that seem to arrive every 20 years is the answer.

Change will not come from slogans: it will come from transparency, empathy, forthrightness, and open loop thinking that recognizes mistakes and learns from them. The needed correction is not as simple as right from wrong—although documentary evidence on this point continues to mount—but right from the harder right.

Communities must study and understand the policing trends that now inform policing and then challenge police executives and police unions to defend them in forthright debate. There is little science behind many police practices and policies, therefore, undoing them is best achieved not from violence, but from informed, thoughtfully constructed, and undaunted questions that go to the heart of the issue: does policing make us better people?

The author, a former New Jersey police officer and retired special agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, is a graduate of Clemson University’s Master in Public Administration program.

The year of 2020 has brought many changes in the world. The COVID-19 pandemic is one of the many events that have affected both policy and daily lives.  COVID-19 or “Corona-virus” is a respiratory disease that is infecting people all around the world.  The only precautions that can be taken to assist in preventing the spread are staying at home, social distancing, wearing a face mask, and washing hands.  COVID-19 has changed the way people live; businesses are having employees work from home and some are shutting down due to the inability to stay open during these times.  Specifically, within the State of South Carolina, Workers’ Compensation is being affected by COVID-19 but it can potentially be a complicated situation for the Workers’ Compensation Commission, insurance agencies, lawyers, and claimants to handle.

The Workers’ Compensation Act in South Carolina offers benefits to most employees who either 1) have an on-the-job work injury or 2) an on-the-job work exposure.  Benefits that injured or infected workers are entitled to include medical treatment and two-thirds of their average weekly wage (temporary total disability, or TTD). Currently, the South Carolina House of Representatives is considering a piece of legislation, H 5482, that has been proposed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic relating to Workers’ Compensation. If passed, H 5482 creates “a rebuttable presumptions of compensability for first responders, health care providers, and correctional officers who contract COVID-19.” With this piece of legislation, there will be four categories of entitlement to temporary total benefits as long as isolation is required: people directed to isolate by his/he employer due to confirmed/suspected COVID-19 exposure, people who receive a COVID-19 diagnosis from a physician, people with a presumptive positive COVID-19 test, and people with a lab confirmed COVID-19 test.

The upcoming months within workers’ compensation is cloudy. Besides providing benefits from COVID-19 exposure and/or diagnosis, there are other elements that could be changing as a result of this pandemic. The workplace environment that is covered by workers’ compensation will be debated on due to the number of employees that are now working from home; and many employers are considering keeping this way. If an employee is working from home and is injured, will that be covered by workers’ compensation if the injury would have been if they were still located in the workplace? For example, if Sarah were to trip over her computer cord while working at home and break her wrist, would she be entitled to benefits under the act? If that same situation were to take place in the office, it would or should be covered under the Act. If her house is now her workplace, if that considered the same thing?

COVID-19 will continue to make an impact on the Workers’ Compensation Act and system for years to come. There are many implications that are arising out of the pandemic and litigation is only just beginning. Claims are now beginning to be filed and even then, litigation does not begin. Some claims may not ever see a hearing; others will be drug through many hearings and in-depth debates. Workers’ compensation has a long road ahead of them but with Bill proposals already in the State’s House of Representatives, it is hopeful that the Act and Legislatures can be proactive rather than reactive once larger priorities are able to be managed.

The first act of Federal disaster relief in American history was through the Congressional Act of 1803 following a devastating fire through a seaport town in New Hampshire in 1802. The assistance was in the form of suspended bond payments for the merchants affected by the fire, as the areas of the seaport that was destroyed threatened commerce throughout the northeast. Devastating fires remained a significant hazard for cities in the 19th century in which more ad hoc legislation addressed incidents on a case-by-case basis; most often in the form of an authorized suspension of financial obligations for disaster survivors.

Public opinion began shifting with the rise of the Progressive Era demanding reform and regulations in the early 1900s. Demands rose for greater government action out of response to the lack of federal assistance provided to the relief efforts related to the Galveston Hurricane in 1900 and the San Francisco Earthquake in 1906. Several significant floods between 1849 and 1936 moved Congress to enact federal flood control measures. Federal resources were sent to integrate into the efforts of the American Red Cross and private sector groups during the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927, making it the first time the Federal Government directly assisted in disaster response and recovery efforts.

Hoover later became President in 1929 and was able to push flood control work as a legitimate federal activity and used it as an unemployment relief measure. The Hoover administration provided a bridge between the Republican Era of the 1920s and the New Deal concerning flood control legislation. The New Deal initiatives involved the federal government in areas of American life that previously belonged to local and state governments. In doing so, it constructed a social safety net to support a long period of growth and prosperity. The New Deal was incremental, as well as experimental, as seen by the quick implementation of the National Labor Relations Act as an alternative solution to address the inadequacies and failures of the National Industrial Recovery Act.

Congress enacted to Federal Disaster Assistance Program in 1950, which authorized the federal government to respond to major disasters. The New Deal era lasted until the onset of the Cold War. By the late 1970s, several areas of the federal government were involved in disaster relief resulting in federal agencies shuffling tasks around as responsibilities were shared. Parallel programs and policies at the state and local levels further fragmented emergency and disaster efforts within an already confusing system facing internal and external political power struggles. The implications of a decentralized concept were not immediately apparent since the system seemed to work relatively well for small to moderate disasters.

The desired objective of consolidating agencies to form a singular overall coordinator of federal disaster relief and preparedness efforts was achieved through the establishment of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as the lead federal disaster preparedness and relief agency in 1979. The unanticipated consequences because of federal resources remaining dispersed amongst agencies suggest the coordination effort did nothing to overhaul how disasters are handled in the United States. Policymakers expect this in the process and therefore are poised for the next incremental step, which in this case was through several reforms in 1993, where the reduction of Cold War era resource allocation could be shifted over to disaster relief, recovery, and mitigation programs. Through FEMA, the federal government continues to redefine and reconsider the strategy and tactics needed to carry out the mission and vision of the agency as it relates to preparedness, protection, response, recovery, and mitigation.

The first half of 2020 has been an interesting case study on the effectiveness of different methods chosen by governments to deal with crisis of the Covid-19 pandemic. When comparing policies set by different countries in response to Covid-19, the outcomes based on their responses vary greatly. While some countries took swift, decisive action based on facts and data in an attempt to mitigate the damages caused by the virus, other countries took action slowly. Although we are still living in the midst of the crisis, new information about consequences of governments’ actions or inaction is steadily emerging and from that we can conclude which decisions were effective and which were not. Policy makers had to make difficult choices, but the effectiveness of those choices had a direct and significant effect on the outcome in their country.

Two nations whose responses can be compared to determine whether they handled the Covid-19 crisis effectively are South Korea and the United States. The countries responded to the pandemic differently from the very beginning, when the first cases of the virus were newly confirmed within their borders. South Korea responded using intense testing and contract tracing methods to quarantine people quickly as they came into contact with infected individuals. The South Korean government used data and facts, including studying the response to a previous respiratory virus epidemic in their country, to determine which actions would be the most effective and took those actions immediately. The United States government on the other hand was slow to acknowledge that the virus was a problem within its borders, was slow to test, and was slow to prohibit travel to mitigate the spread of the disease. The failure of the United States government to ignore the preliminary data from countries that were hit by the pandemic before them, and the failure to act quickly and decisively contributed to the fast spread of the virus across the states. It also resulted in the economy of the United States suffering immensely as the country shut down en masse, prompting a secondary financial crisis as unemployment numbers went up significantly when people lost their jobs and businesses had to close.

Another comparison between the South Korean and the United States governments’ response to Covid-19 is the information and messaging that went to their citizens. While South Korea’s government disseminated information in January encouraging citizens to take measures to slow the spread of the virus, the United States government downplayed the threat of Covid-19 and did not treat it as an emergency until mid-March. The United States response was ineffective because the virus was able to spread for weeks among a population that may not have known the gravity of the situation. Another factor that contributed to the virus’s spread was the mixed messaging that came from different state governments in the US. Some states took extreme lockdown measures earlier than others, leading citizens to believe those states were overreacting. A final factor that contributed to an ineffective response to Covid-19 by the United States government was politicizing the pandemic. A virus is not an inherently political issue and partisan politics should have no effect on decisions made by governing bodies in their response to disease outbreaks.

The steps that South Korea and the United States each took lead to quite different outcomes. Per Google statistics, South Korea has confirmed close to 12,000 cases in total, with less than 300 deaths. The United States has confirmed over 2 million cases with 114,000 deaths. The United States accounts for about 4.25% of the world’s population but accounts for over 28% of the world’s confirmed Covid-19 cases and over 28% of the world’s Covid-19 deaths. A disproportionate number of United States citizens have become sick or died as a result of Covid- 19 and that statistic is a direct outcome of ineffective governance during the Covid-19 crisis. The South Korean government’s response to the pandemic is a great example of how effective governance has kept their citizens relatively healthy and saved their lives. The United States’ response shows how ineffective governance during a crisis was a threat to the health and lives of their citizens.

Effective governance is crucial during a crisis and state governments would be wise to evaluate which responses to Covid-19 prove to slow down or stop the spread of the disease as numbers of cases begin to rise again in many places. If their policy makers analyze the data, make decisions based on facts and science, are transparent with their citizens, disseminate information quickly, and have consistent messaging then the crisis will be much less burdensome on their resources and they will have much lower sickness and death rates.

The events of the past weeks are manifestations of generations of systemic racism and structural inequities.  As the Minneapolis Mayor, Jacob Frey said these feelings of anger and sadness are “not only understandable, it’s right — it’s a reflection of the truth that our black community has lived.”  This may have left some of us wondering what is our part, how do we help inform and change structural and systemic racism in all its forms?

Our program is focused on educating and supporting the development of professionals who value good governance, transparent institutions, diversity and inclusion in all forms, and social and economic justice such that we enhance the strength and sustainability of all of our communities and the individuals in them. We have much work to do but as MPA Program Director, please know we are committed to all of our students and we are with our black and brown students now and always.

While we cannot walk in your shoes, we will walk with you, we will listen and we will work alongside you and others for real change in all of our communities. As a part of this, over the next few weeks, we will be considering some ideas for special topics courses, lunch and learns and other opportunities to learn together about these important issues and public administration. We will be soliciting your feedback and ideas and we welcome them all.  

I send peace to all! Lori

Full disclosure, I wasn’t sure I was going to publicly post this when I sat down to write it.  Then I remembered at the end of the day, my job is to ensure everyone goes home safe and lessons are learned from mistakes, even if those mistakes are my own or my departments.  COVID-19 has posed incredible challenges to the agencies tasked with responding to issues.  The biggest challenge I have personally encountered so far, is how to communicate information that is vital to agency response to those responsible for actually responding.

Currently, I am splitting roles between front line supervisor and planning team member for the department’s incident management team (IMT).  The benefit is I get first hand insight to the decisions that are made and assist with making them.  The downside is I get information that is not for general release for a multitude of reasons.  Those who I am tasked with leading in my every day role know where I spend the rest of my time.  They know I have information and they try really hard to get that information, and I can’t blame them.  The communication from my department from the onset has been lacking.  That said, the department is in the unenviable position of responding to a crisis that has not been dealt with on this large of scale in over 100 years.  Even with that factor, the department has committed 2 of the 7 deadly sins outlined in Sujan Patel’s 2017 article for Inc. titled “The 7 Deadly Sins of Manager-Employee Communication (and How to Avoid Them)”, being unapproachable and using passive-aggressive communication.

The previous sentence was painful to write because I know there are many in the department who do not intend it to be that way.  My department also has a chain of command which makes the unapproachable part seem normal, but it does not and SHOULD not be that way, especially in these uncertain times.  Now more than ever the department leadership needs to engage with its employees and reaffirm their commitment to the success of the department.  Insulating themselves and responding to inquiries with phrases such as “check the blog” or “that question has already been answered” is just not sufficient and seems almost cold.  The responders are afraid, their families are afraid, and the public they are tasked with helping are afraid.  A leadership presence is required more than ever, not only to calm those under their command, but to deliver a strong message that can be relayed to the public.

For now, I’ll continue to calm those under my direct command, pass on what information I can when I can, and do my best to ensure other departments can learn from mistakes that are made prior to making the mistakes themselves.

As we settle into our new normal within the world of COVID-19 and evaluate the ongoing national response to the Coronavirus outbreak, we’ve seen varying degrees of effectiveness in managing the viruses spread across all levels of government. Regardless of where one stands on the political spectrum, there has been chaos, confusion, and uncertainty about the future amongst both sides of the political table. We’ve reached a critical crossroad, where political interests and loyalties meet humanitarian decision-making with economic implications…two ingredients in a recipe for disaster.

From the most senior administrators, the delay in prioritizing the virus as an impending catastrophic event led to the chaotic response that ensued across the country, particularly in Washington, New York, and California. Although, what is occurring is unprecedented, there were instruments and safety nets in place to prevent an all-out failure by leadership in foreseeing the disaster associated with viral events such as this. In 2015, on the heels of dealing with an Ebola crisis, then President Obama requested common sense, bi-partisan support from Congress in funding a Pandemic Response Team so that “5 years from now or a decade from now” the U.S. would be poised to respond to another flu-strain. Exactly 5 years after that request, the globe is under siege from a flu-strain that has crippled world markets, invoked fear and panic, and has shown how unprepared we were for what was forewarned. Exacerbating the effects of the virus was the decision to disassemble the Pandemic Response Team in 2018 for fiduciary reasons, as well as the firing of the CDC liaison strategically positioned in China’s CDC equivalent agency. The early warning systems put in place were haphazardly dismantled piece by piece until we could barely see what was in front of us, the fog of war becoming thicker by the minute.

On a state level, the responses by Governor Cuomo and many others have been inspiring, especially when considering the added challenge of citizens feeling their constitutional rights are being infringed upon through the “shelter-in-place” orders. Spring breakers refused to have their getaway from school ruined and continued to crowd the beaches, party, and risk their own safety for a few days of vacation. As a resident of Florida, it has been noticeable how behind the curve our state was in issuing lockdowns and closures. The Spring Breakers and snowbirds that refused to leave the beaches continued to cause additional personnel management issues for hospitals and emergency responders as their recklessness continued to inundate hospitals with positive cases as healthcare workers burned through Personal Protective Equipment faster than it could be resupplied. Being weeks into the response, the decisions of Governors across the country are going to drive the direction the virus takes. Similar to Hurricane Katrina, where the storm’s initial impact was tough, but manageable, the flooding from the broken levees led to the unsettling images that were burned into our nation’s Emergency Management history. The state response is similar to the levees, if they fail to control the building pressure to prematurely reopen government the secondary wave is going to be catastrophic and the damage irreparable.

As we continue to navigate these uncharted waters, we mustn’t forget those who are looking to us for guidance, strength, and leadership. On a world stage, the past few weeks have shown us that despite the hope we place in others to do the right thing, when push comes to shove, people tend to resort to primal instincts of placing “I” above all. The hoarders and price gouging are exhibiting the worst of our society and sending a terrible message to our foreign allies and enemies alike that the U.S. may not be worthy of the head of the international table. Our inability to manage supply lines, show common decency for others, or to protect our first responders are clear-tell signs that we may not be the tip of the spear as we think of ourselves to be.

It’s easy to identify the surface-level impacts, but we cannot overlook the generational impacts occurring. Our Baby Boomers and Gen-X are the most at-risk for health related complications and death, while our Millennials and Gen-Z are dealing with a sudden financial downward spiral with the highest unemployment rate in our country’s history. Looking to the future, our youngest generation is experiencing a lesser-discussed crisis with potentially greater impact on their developing personas. COVID-19 has forced school closures around the nation and led to more questions than answers regarding our children’s educational future. With Virginia closing schools for the remainder of the school year and Florida contemplating reopening on 01 May, how do we ensure kids’ re-entry to school is as least impactful on their acclimation back to a classroom environment after forcing online education during a pandemic? Do they repeat the grade? Are they required to attend summer school to make up missed lessons? Are students who don’t have access to technology in-home responsible for missing work when their parents were depending on their attendance at school throughout the year for their education? We as a nation have to do better if not for our own safety and security, then for the safety and security of our most vulnerable populations.

The response to the COVID-19 is presented a myriad of public policy problems. To me, what is most troubling is the amount of authority that has been vested in government bodies at all level. So far this week, the governor of South Carolina has closed all public beaches and boat ramps. In addition to those restrictions, most, if not all, state parks are closed.

I’m troubled by the government’s actions in closing areas where social distancing could still be practiced. I’m equally troubled by the ripple effect this could cause on individual’s physical and mental health.

From a law enforcement perspective, I’ve heard stories of county jail’s refusing to accept arrested individuals. I’ve also heard that at lease one jail will not hold anyone unless they are charged with a  capital crime.  I have serious concerns as to how this policy will contribute to lawlessness and victimization.

In terms of the government’s response, I feel that the government has done a good job of responding to this crisis. I’d contend this is an unprecedented event, so we are in uncharted territory. I’m encouraged by the government’s work to provide relief to the various interest groups. The government has been working to help hospitals, business, and individual persons.

I think it a tremendous testiment to the resolve and commitment of our govenment and the ability of our representatives to govern by how rapildy the various relief bills passed through congress. For the first time in a while, there was a truly bipartisan approach to legislation.

There are several takeaways from this crisis. First, there is an incredible amount of goodwill that is being demonstrated. Everyday we see stories about communities and people coming together to help. Second, this crisis has demonstrated the downside of America’s foreign reliance. There is a significant amount of medical goods and equipment. This has certainly created national security implications and in some ways, reduced the ability to treat patients.

I’m not sure there is a clear path forward, I think this is something we have to take one day at a time.