Not for nothing, but the thing about the Chinese blaming American soldiers is no joke. It's becoming, if not the official party line, what the party is pushing, and the levels of xenophobia and outright racism over there are worse than they've been in decades. They're not burning KFCs, but it's going to be a problem.

Nitpickingly, and probably OT:
The PRC foreign ministry has in fact insinuated repeatedly that the US Army brought the disease to Wuhan, and I think that is actually a relevant fact in context.*
The PRC ambassador in DC was summoned (to State or WH IDK) regarding those insinuations, so those "mid-low" people were actually just one step below Trump. Which probably supports OP last.
*Or, you know, it would be if this were a functioning administration, or even a functioning human brain, neither of which I'm attributing to Trump. In any case it's an important fact which shouldn't be forgotten just because Trump is on the other side.

Pwned. And it clearly is the party line. Those statements are coming direct from MFD, 2 ranks above the ambassador to DC.

This shows a total lack of international awareness, but what were American soldiers ever doing in Wuhan at all? Or is the whole thing a myth?

Wuhan hosted an international military sports event in October. The rumor in China is that that's when it was introduced into the country.

This thing.

And of course it was those low and mid level public health workers in Wuhan who tried to sound the alarm.

Donald Trump is still marginally more honest (or less able to manipulate the press) than communist dictators. Small favors.

||

Dan Maudlin, the company's chief financial officer

Go ahead and short that company.

8 No, he just has more modest ambitions.

Has some mid-level WH guy thought of finding a way to communicate to ordinary Chinese mid-level people 'yeah, and if you don't buy x zillion tons of soybeans from us, we'll do it again.'

My mom could really use good soybean prices to make up for that she has to sell stock in a tanking market.

||

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-03/virus-lockdowns-are-reshaping-election-fight-for-senate-control

Rude. Sorry.

I thought Putin showed a mordant sense of humor when he denied there was any Russian-Saudi agreement to limit oil production but then suggested that the US as a major producer should take part in any voluntary cutbacks.

That bit about low-level/mid-level people caught my ear when I heard it, because it reveals how Trump (and many managers) view the workforce. For those who share Trump's perspective, the "high-level" people matter the most, know the most, and are generally the most valuable employees in any organization.

I think this is a misreading.

Trump is not saying "This guy said it, but he is low-level, therefore he does not understand the true state of affairs. I am high-level, therefore I am better informed about the big picture. I know the true situation and can describe it."

That would, contra Stanley, be a defensible position to take. The CEO of Exxon actually does have a better idea of how much oil the company's producing each week and whether it's likely to go bust next month than a random sales assistant in a petrol station or a random roustabout on a drilling rig (though the latter may have a better idea of what's happening on his particular rig). I would trust the head of PHE to know how many neonatal ICU beds there are in England more accurately than I'd trust a medical registrar.
To claim the reverse is mere vulgar Dilbertism.

But Trump doesn't care about the state of affairs. He doesn't view reality as something external to discourse. He views reality as something that is defined by discourse. He's not saying "this low-level person doesn't see the full picture so he is giving you an inaccurate description of reality." He's saying "the person who said this thing is low-level and therefore he does not have the right to define reality. Only high-level people are able, by their utterances, to define reality."

I think ajay has it right. It's a priesthood.

17 is too dignified. It's enabled narcissism.
16: OP attributes this to some managers, not all, which I think reasonable.