4
4
0
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/01/30/biden-end-covid-health-emergencies-may-11/?utm_campaign=wp_the7&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_the7&carta-url=https%3A%2F%2Fs2.washingtonpost.com%2Fcar-ln-tr%2F38feeda%2F63d904231b79c61f87710a8f%2F598aa7329bbc0f6826010a2a%2F18%2F52%2F63d904231b79c61f87710a8f&wp_cu=5913ae7bdf5acc225bf6bd9038eebdcd%7C1562C04810C73551E050007F010023BB
Biden to end COVID national emergencies in May: White House announces intent in response to GOP efforts to end the declarations immediately.
Biden to end COVID national emergencies in May: White House announces intent in response to GOP efforts to end the declarations immediately.
biden-end-covid-health-emergencies-may-11
Posted from washingtonpost.com
Coronavirus COVID19
Joe Biden
Republicans
Congress
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 3
3
3
0
3
3
0
1
1
0
OK, seesee can't understand this. Can someone explain it to me like I'm 10?
This isn't Webster's or anything like that, but my definition of an emergency requires three things:
1. Urgent. If it isn't fixed immediately it will either get WAY worse OR go unfixed.
2. Unplanned. If we new it was coming, we should have plans in place.
3. Critical. Leaving the situation unfixed will have
disastrous results.
All three must be present. A controlled burn (urgent and critical, but not unplanned), a paper cut (urgent and unplanned, but not critical), and medical debt (unplanned and critical, but not urgent) are not emergencies.
Now, Webster or dictionary.com or Messrs. Funk and Wagnal may have slightly different definitions, but I THINK mine is pretty close to the way most people view that word. And by this definition, and emergency simply cannot last for 3 years, by definition. At some point - and I don't know when that point is, but it is CERTAINLY at the 1 year mark OR SOONER - the situation is no longer unplanned. It becomes a known issue, and plans SHOULD be in place. If plans are not in place it is no longer because of emergency, it is because failure of responsible parties.
Additionally, because emergencies are unplanned events, we also cannot plan a date in the future when the emergency will be over. Doing so is an admission that the emergency is ALREADY over.
So, can someone please explain to me how the hell Biden is setting a date for the emergency to be over? Especially one he ALREADY SAID was over almost a year ago?
This isn't Webster's or anything like that, but my definition of an emergency requires three things:
1. Urgent. If it isn't fixed immediately it will either get WAY worse OR go unfixed.
2. Unplanned. If we new it was coming, we should have plans in place.
3. Critical. Leaving the situation unfixed will have
disastrous results.
All three must be present. A controlled burn (urgent and critical, but not unplanned), a paper cut (urgent and unplanned, but not critical), and medical debt (unplanned and critical, but not urgent) are not emergencies.
Now, Webster or dictionary.com or Messrs. Funk and Wagnal may have slightly different definitions, but I THINK mine is pretty close to the way most people view that word. And by this definition, and emergency simply cannot last for 3 years, by definition. At some point - and I don't know when that point is, but it is CERTAINLY at the 1 year mark OR SOONER - the situation is no longer unplanned. It becomes a known issue, and plans SHOULD be in place. If plans are not in place it is no longer because of emergency, it is because failure of responsible parties.
Additionally, because emergencies are unplanned events, we also cannot plan a date in the future when the emergency will be over. Doing so is an admission that the emergency is ALREADY over.
So, can someone please explain to me how the hell Biden is setting a date for the emergency to be over? Especially one he ALREADY SAID was over almost a year ago?
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google