More lies from the deranged. Trump was the one who wanted to ban travel from China early on, it was the dems who screamed "Racist! You can't do that!" with Pelosi and crew urging people to go down to Chinatown and shop and mingle in the crowds instead.
Trump brought up his doctor's recommendation of zinc and HCQ. Immediately the anti-science media, dems, and pharma-shills jump out and start shrieking that it's fake and harmful, with none of them taking a step back to look into it first, or acknowledging that
More lies from the deranged. Trump was the one who wanted to ban travel from China early on, it was the dems who screamed "Racist! You can't do that!" with Pelosi and crew urging people to go down to Chinatown and shop and mingle in the crowds instead.
And still, to this day, the best scientific evidence suggests that travel bans are mostly useless.
Trump brought up his doctor's recommendation of zinc and HCQ. Immediately the anti-science media, dems, and pharma-shills jump out and start shrieking that it's fake and harmful, with none of them taking a step back to look into it first, or acknowledging that it's a cheap, safe, proven combo that's been used for a long time.
It is absolutely not proven. Every study suggesting that it is effective has been thoroughly debunked. And every study suggesting it is safe has been at such a low dose that it has no statistically significant effect.
Twitter, Facebook, and the media was immediately censoring and attacking anyone who claimed that this came from the Wuhan lab instead of the claimed "wet market". Any evidence put forth was deleted and the author's smeared.
What "evidence"? You mean a bunch of conspiracy theory drivel spewing from people with a long history of spewing conspiracy theory drivel? If there were any evidence that were even *slightly* credible, the world would know about it.
New Zealand had massive contact tracing and mandatory quarantines for everybody they let in. That's what makes a difference, not arbitrarily saying that one person can enter and another can't.
It's always way too late. Statistically, unless you're in a tiny country that nobody visits, you will never successfully get one in place before a communicable disease has reached your country, and after that, there's no point.
It's cruel. Statistically, if there's a serious pandemic, most nonessential travel stops. So what you're doing is basically keeping people from returning home, or going to take care of sick relatives, or whatever.
Keeping people away from home makes the spread of disease worse. When folks are out there in an unknown area, possibly without health coverage, having to interact with the public in ways that far exceed what would be required if they were at home and could utilize the services that they are familiar with, this cannot possibly be an improvement.
Isolating people does ease the spreading of communicable diseases. But banning travel per se is almost completely useless, and can actually make things worse. At best, it reduces the number of cases by the number of people who would have gotten sick while on the plane, and only if those folks wouldn't have otherwise gotten sick.
What does help is a strict post-travel quarantine policy — requiring everyone, whether a tourist or a local returning home, to be quarantined for two weeks *after* they travel, to ensure that anything they picked up (whether on the ground or in the air) doesn't spread any further.
This conversation has convinced me of a few things:
First, that there are three general opinions on the issue of travel bans:
A: Trump's dumb because travel bans don't work, and they're bad if they prevent people from coming home
B: Trump's dumb because he didn't impose a travel ban earlier and universally, and was stupid for not blocking American citizens from coming back as well
C: Sure it didn't do much for this long-incubation-period sometimes-asymptomatic virus, but it was probably worth a shot given
Group A is wrong, both because they're mixing politics and science and because travel bans do kind of work at preventing adding more infected people than are already here; they just aren't the best way to do that, and cause disproportionate harm compared with the benefit.
Group B is wrong, both because they're mixing politics and science and because what they're proposing would have caused vastly more harm than it prevented.
we knew at the time was that the virus had a long incubation period
So in January we were still not sure about whether sustained transmission was possible, but we had firm numbers on the incubation period?
Yes. The travel ban was announced on January 31. Here's a journal article from four days prior [jwatch.org] saying that the incubation period can be up to two weeks, based on information announced by China on the day before that (January 26).
As for doubts about whether sustained transmission was possible, that might have been true at the beginning of January, but not by January 31. After all, China quarantined the entire city of Wuhan beginning on January 23, a full eight days before Trump announced the travel ban.
had the February 2 order implemented a mandatory quarantine on anyone coming back from overseas regardless of country, rather than being a stupid ban on travel from only a specific location
All President Trump had to do was listen to people who disagreed with them, think about what they were saying, acknowledge that they had a valid point, and add a quarantine-on-entry policy, and we would have avoided the overwhelming majority of coronavirus cases and deaths.
had the February 2 order implemented a mandatory quarantine on anyone coming back from overseas regardless of country, rather than being a stupid ban on travel from only a specific location
All President Trump had to do was listen to people who disagreed with them, think about what they were saying, acknowledge that they had a valid point, and add a quarantine-on-entry policy, and we would have avoided the overwhelming majority of coronavirus cases and deaths.
Yeah, because every expert at the time was firmly against travel bans and all in on universal quarantines, and the president has a clear legal right to do that. That explains why all of the non-Trump heads of state did that at the time./s
The number of people who did the wrong thing is not an indication that it wasn't the wrong thing. Just look at what medical experts were saying about travel bans at the time, and you'll see that I'm right about this.
Had we moved sooner, they might also have moved sooner, and staved off the virus's spread to Europe, where it mutated into the even more deadly version that screwed up NYC so badly.
Which is why a time-bounded travel shutdown would have been great.
Travel bans are ludicrously stupid, except the variations I like, which are great.
I never said they were ludicrously stupid. I said that they are "almost completely useless". I stand by that statement. They are not at all effective at the claimed goal of keeping a disease out of your country, because they are always — always — too late to achieve that.
The number of people who did the wrong thing is not an indication that it wasn't the wrong thing.
Quite true. On the other hand it is an indication that their incorrect action was understandable. If 99 out of 100 of people get a question wrong, then getting the question wrong does not mean that you're at the bottom of the class.
Travel bans are bad because they're the equivalent of using nuclear weapons to solve Florida's mosquito problem.
The number of people who did the wrong thing is not an indication that it wasn't the wrong thing.
Quite true. On the other hand it is an indication that their incorrect action was understandable. If 99 out of 100 of people get a question wrong, then getting the question wrong does not mean that you're at the bottom of the class.
True. On the flip side, when everybody else copies off the kid who get it wrong... well, yeah, everybody was still pretty dumb.:-D
Travel bans are bad because they're the equivalent of using nuclear weapons to solve Florida's mosquito problem.
I never said they were ludicrously stupid.
I'm a fan of using hyperbole, but you don't get to say that someone is "worse than Hitler" and then get mad when people think that you don't like him.
I think you're misunderstanding the point of that analogy. The point wasn't to say "this is literally as bad as using a nuclear weapon". The point was to say that it is a ridiculously heavy-handed solution to the problem that could be much better solved with a much less extreme solution (and, secondarily, that any improvement would be, at best, very temporary). If you would
People crossing the border illegally will not even try to quarantine, and will actively avoid contact tracing. This will lead to outbreaks popping up no matter how well most people handle things.
Sadly, that may be true, but we have only our backwards immigration policies to blame for that. This is a problem that's relatively easy to fix.
But if you're not willing to fix that, you can still largely avoid the problem by using a private company to administer the program, and passing laws prohibiting that company from asking for the citizenship status of anyone involved or sharing any information with law enforcement under any circumstances unless the company itself is being sued for fraud. If necessa
Sadly, that may be true, but we have only our backwards immigration policies to blame for that.
It's not so much the policies, it's the selective enforcement. If we have heavily restricted immigration and strong, uniform enforcement, that would probably lead to relatively few illegal immigrants, even if you disagree with the policy. Same with a lax policy matched with cops not harassing people who are within the law. But the way things are, the lax enforcement lets them in, and then the restrictive laws ke
I thought you meant that you thought the government would evacuate people as a way of catching illegal immigrants. I hope you can understand why my reaction was absolute bafflement.:-D
Wow. If you think some of the problem was on my end could you quote the part that threw you off?
It was definitely a mix. Specifically this sentence threw me:
And of course this isn't temporary, because people will mess up quarantine, an emergency or a natural disaster will occur, drugs and other contraband will still get smuggled, and the whole thing will start over again.
Which I interpreted to mean that they would do a future evacuation because of either A. someone screwing up the quarantine, B. some other emergency or natural disaster necessitating an evacuation, or C. to stop drugs and contraband, whereas you meant that other disasters and/or people smuggling drugs/contraband will mess up the quarantine.
Quarantines and travel bans are mutually inclusive or exclusive.
You can have a travel ban with no guarantee and still have the virus spread (especially since the China travel ban didn't actually stop everyone coming from China). You can also have no travel ban but quarantines which is probably more effective. You can also have travel bans and quarantines (especially of those entering the country) which is arguably the most effective.
So yes, the Trump imposed travel restrictions for people coming from China pr
I've been through dozens and dozens of case where it's claimed that Trump "got the facts wrong". I was surprised because I struggled to find a case where that was definitively so. TDS appears to be one of many perceptual disorders impacting Democrat supporters where their brains alters how they perceive reality to fit their expectations or to conform to their desires.
This effect is usually subtle. Language is very imperfect and its very easy for the brain to automatically supply the interpretation the pe
I've been through dozens and dozens of case where it's claimed that Trump "got the facts wrong". I was surprised because I struggled to find a case where that was definitively so.
OK, here are a few.
Wednesday, February 19:
Trump: The coronavirus will weaken “when we get into April, in the warmer weather—that has a very negative effect on that, and that type of a virus.” (April was a peak)
Thursday, February 27:
Trump: The outbreak would be temporary: “It’s going to disappear. One day it’s like a miracle—it will disappear.” (Nope.)
Monday, July 6:
Trump: “We now have the lowest fatality rate in the World.”
(Note that the U.S. has neither the lowest mortality rate nor the lowest case-fatality rate.)
Monday, May 11:
Trump: The United States has conducted more testing “than all other countries together!”
(nope).
It should be noted that in all the poster's statements you're responding to that a bunch of claims were made and referenced that refutes people's criticisms of Trump without actually pointing to anything specific. Read it again - all vague points and partial truths with no citations to back up claims. Don't expect a response or sudden enlightenment.
I think there is something wrong with people whose complaint is that a portion of a discussion, someone sharing their thoughts, experiences and insights somehow isn't valid because it's not in the same format as wikipedia. I feel somewhat sorry for you. I have Aspergers mildly but you must be the Sheldon Cooper of Aspergers.
This isn't wikipedia or a scientific paper. It's a comment and discussion forum. It's casual and you don't have to take everything everyone says as gospel. Everything should be met wi
Without diving too far into details, when people make claims about things I tend to like to know why they think something. I'm one of those people who like to question what I believe because I know that I tend to keep my head down on a lot of stuff going on because.... I just don't have the time to educate myself on everything. However, i do like learning.
Therefore, if someone makes a claim about anything I like to know why they think that or where they get their information. This isn't some weird person
What I've seen you do is basically a really bad habit and it's not just you doing that. What are you really defending, yourself or a habit? You can lose a habit. It's normal to want to ask for some more elaboration on a few key things but disqualification based on that invented criteria is counter productive. Everyone sort of sees the world through a keyhole and I'm saying what I see through mine.
Yet what I base my conclusions on isn't some Gnostic secret insider information. It's generally based on obse
Okay. We need to stop this. You keep referencing some Wikipedia as if I need a line-by-line backing of everything you say. This is not the first time I've said, explicitly, that this is not what I'm asking for. Also, let's both assume that each of us has a busy life where spending our free time researching everyone else's viewpoint isn't practical. My schedule is already 18 hours a day of working, teaching, etc. and I don't need more of a headache. I'll work off the assumption you're a busy individual
That makes sense. Out of frustration of having little time you're sort of wanting me to provide a format where everything has to be served on a silver platter though in the balance of things that's not reasonable. That correlates with the wikipedia format and level of expectations. Especially not good when making it not about that you don't have time but if it doesn't cater to your limitations then it's invalid.
That aside I don't keep a diary of absolutely every video, news article and other thing I migh
So we finally starting talking. Good. The information here is a lot and gives me something to read over and the context gives me something to ponder. This is what I wanted. Please understand, however, that your attitude sucks. If someone asks you a question about why you think something, the thing to not do is berate them. Show them respect and don't insult people's intelligence because their experiences or interests don't match your own. It's one of the many reasons discourse sucks around here. Act
We're guilty of the same and in my case it is being burnt by endless nonsensical arguments. A bit of jabbing is par the course but dirty tricks and complete obstruction are aggressively pursued by various brigades out there and it can be easy for people to slip into it purely on account of the wrong thing being never the less almost effortless and yet effective in that it requires greater effort often to offset it. The citing sources requirement which isn't a requirement is a wikipedia thing though you coul
Trump: The coronavirus will weaken “when we get into April, in the warmer weather—that has a very negative effect on that, and that type of a virus.” (April was a peak)
So it started dropping off in April, and that's evidence that... there wasn't a negative effect on the virus then?
Trump: The coronavirus will weaken “when we get into April, in the warmer weather—that has a very negative effect on that, and that type of a virus.” (April was a peak)
So it started dropping off in April, and that's evidence that... there wasn't a negative effect on the virus then?
In the week of February 19, when Trump made the statement that the coronavirus would "weaken" in April, there were a total of 53 cases in the United States.
At the end of April, there were 28,000 new cases per day in the United States.
No, the coronavirus didn't "weaken" in April compared to when he made that statement.
No, the coronavirus didn't "weaken" in April compared to when he made that statement.
So it did "weaken in April", but you're allowed to slap on whatever other stuff you want to make the statement false? You sound like a "fact"-checker:
"The weather will warm up in April" - Our rating: mostly false. Sure, the weather did steadily warm throughout April, but since the statement was made in August (and by Trump), well...
But it did "weaken in April". You don't get to swap "it will be weaker in April than it is now" for what he actually said and then claim he was wrong.
When he said. "It will weaken in April," this very clearly means "it will be weaker in April than it is now."
You may say "look, he was technically correct", but no, absolutely not. You are distorting his words.
If I complain about a traffic tie up at 3pm, and you tell me 'don't worry, the traffic will lessen by 5:30', you can't then tell me "well, it's a bad traffic jam at 5:30, but I was technically correct because when I said it would lessen, I only meant it will be better at 5:30 than it was at 5."
When he said. "It will weaken in April," this very clearly means "it will be weaker in April than it is now."
I could not find that exact quote, so I'm not sure which one you're talking about, but it's clear from the similar ones I've found that he hoped that warmer weather would help. By your own admission, it apparently did.
If I look for the quotation from your original post I find "I think it's going to work out fine. I think when we get into April, in the warmer weather, that has a very negative effe
Wednesday, February 19:
Trump: The coronavirus will weaken “when we get into April, in the warmer weather—that has a very negative effect on that, and that type of a virus.” (April was a peak)
This sounds more like a hopeful statement from early on before we knew how bad it was going to get. Not a scientific prediction based on modelling.
Thursday, February 27:
Trump: The outbreak would be temporary: “It’s going to disappear. One day it’s like a miracle—it will disappear.” (Nope.)
I read this as: "one day, this whole pandemic will be over and it will seem like a miracle when it is". I'm sure it will be over some day.
I do agree, without looking into them further, that the other two look like he "got the facts wrong".
I believe it is a true assessment that Trump does have a pattern of occasionally slipping into making certain statements when talking about things that are possible but not certain. He also has a tendency to be somewhat approximate in his use of language as well as colloquial. He semi regularly speaks in a kind of shorthand. On occasion he's misinformed, like everyone else he has to rely on others and people get things wrong sometimes.
None of these statements are egregious examples. The question here is
"It's shown very encouraging -- very, very encouraging early results. And we're going to be able to make that drug available almost immediately. And that's where the FDA has been so great. They -- they've gone through the approval process; it's been approved. And they did it -- they took it down from many, many months to immediate. So we're going to be able to make that drug available by prescription or states,"
Trump may not have come up with HCQ as a treatment for the virus but he did state that it had been approved by the FDA as a treatment even though it never was nor has it been approved as a treatment by the FDA.
They -- they've gone through the approval process; it's been approved. And they did it -- they took it down from many, many months to immediate. So we're going to be able to make that drug available by prescription or states
he did state that it had been approved by the FDA as a treatment even though it never was nor has it been approved as a treatment by the FDA.
It wasn't approved as a "treatment", but is was approved for "compassionate use" [pharmacytimes.com]. If you listen to the entire press conference it's clear that
I just re-listened to the press conference. Trump only states that HCQ was approved by the FDA and they did much faster than normal. Nowhere does he say or even imply that the drug is only being given Extended Access.
The article you linked also goes out of their way to state that in no way was HCQ approved as a treatment for the virus.
Chloroquine and remdesivir are not FDA-approved for a COVID-19 indications, but Expanded Access allows patients with serious or life-threatening cases of the virus to have access to them as investigational medicinal products.
I just re-listened to the press conference. Trump only states that HCQ was approved by the FDA and they did much faster than normal. Nowhere does he say or even imply that the drug is only being given Extended Access.
More TDS (Score:-1, Troll)
More lies from the deranged. Trump was the one who wanted to ban travel from China early on, it was the dems who screamed "Racist! You can't do that!" with Pelosi and crew urging people to go down to Chinatown and shop and mingle in the crowds instead.
Trump brought up his doctor's recommendation of zinc and HCQ. Immediately the anti-science media, dems, and pharma-shills jump out and start shrieking that it's fake and harmful, with none of them taking a step back to look into it first, or acknowledging that
Re:More TDS (Score:2, Informative)
More lies from the deranged. Trump was the one who wanted to ban travel from China early on, it was the dems who screamed "Racist! You can't do that!" with Pelosi and crew urging people to go down to Chinatown and shop and mingle in the crowds instead.
And still, to this day, the best scientific evidence suggests that travel bans are mostly useless.
Trump brought up his doctor's recommendation of zinc and HCQ. Immediately the anti-science media, dems, and pharma-shills jump out and start shrieking that it's fake and harmful, with none of them taking a step back to look into it first, or acknowledging that it's a cheap, safe, proven combo that's been used for a long time.
It is absolutely not proven. Every study suggesting that it is effective has been thoroughly debunked. And every study suggesting it is safe has been at such a low dose that it has no statistically significant effect.
Twitter, Facebook, and the media was immediately censoring and attacking anyone who claimed that this came from the Wuhan lab instead of the claimed "wet market". Any evidence put forth was deleted and the author's smeared.
What "evidence"? You mean a bunch of conspiracy theory drivel spewing from people with a long history of spewing conspiracy theory drivel? If there were any evidence that were even *slightly* credible, the world would know about it.
Re: More TDS (Score:3)
New Zealand would beg to differ on travel bans.
Re: More TDS (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
New Zealand would beg to differ on travel bans.
New Zealand had massive contact tracing and mandatory quarantines for everybody they let in. That's what makes a difference, not arbitrarily saying that one person can enter and another can't.
Re:More TDS (Score:4, Informative)
Okay, here's why travel bans don't work:
Isolating people does ease the spreading of communicable diseases. But banning travel per se is almost completely useless, and can actually make things worse. At best, it reduces the number of cases by the number of people who would have gotten sick while on the plane, and only if those folks wouldn't have otherwise gotten sick.
What does help is a strict post-travel quarantine policy — requiring everyone, whether a tourist or a local returning home, to be quarantined for two weeks *after* they travel, to ensure that anything they picked up (whether on the ground or in the air) doesn't spread any further.
Re: (Score:2)
This conversation has convinced me of a few things:
First, that there are three general opinions on the issue of travel bans:
A: Trump's dumb because travel bans don't work, and they're bad if they prevent people from coming home
B: Trump's dumb because he didn't impose a travel ban earlier and universally, and was stupid for not blocking American citizens from coming back as well
C: Sure it didn't do much for this long-incubation-period sometimes-asymptomatic virus, but it was probably worth a shot given
Re: (Score:2)
And all of those three opinions are wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
So in January we were still not sure about whether sustained transmission was possible, but we had firm numbers on the incubation period?
Oh, wow. For a moment I thought you were being serious.
I agree for the most part. And you know what would help accomplish those things or prep them? A week or two of extra time.
Re: (Score:2)
So in January we were still not sure about whether sustained transmission was possible, but we had firm numbers on the incubation period?
Yes. The travel ban was announced on January 31. Here's a journal article from four days prior [jwatch.org] saying that the incubation period can be up to two weeks, based on information announced by China on the day before that (January 26).
As for doubts about whether sustained transmission was possible, that might have been true at the beginning of January, but not by January 31. After all, China quarantined the entire city of Wuhan beginning on January 23, a full eight days before Trump announced the travel ban.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because every expert at the time was firm
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because every expert at the time was firmly against travel bans and all in on universal quarantines, and the president has a clear legal right to do that. That explains why all of the non-Trump heads of state did that at the time. /s
The number of people who did the wrong thing is not an indication that it wasn't the wrong thing. Just look at what medical experts were saying about travel bans at the time, and you'll see that I'm right about this.
Travel bans are ludicrously stupid, except the variations I like, which are great.
I never said they were ludicrously stupid. I said that they are "almost completely useless". I stand by that statement. They are not at all effective at the claimed goal of keeping a disease out of your country, because they are always — always — too late to achieve that.
A limite
Re: (Score:2)
Quite true. On the other hand it is an indication that their incorrect action was understandable. If 99 out of 100 of people get a question wrong, then getting the question wrong does not mean that you're at the bottom of the class.
I'm a fan of using hyperb
Re: (Score:2)
Quite true. On the other hand it is an indication that their incorrect action was understandable. If 99 out of 100 of people get a question wrong, then getting the question wrong does not mean that you're at the bottom of the class.
True. On the flip side, when everybody else copies off the kid who get it wrong... well, yeah, everybody was still pretty dumb. :-D
I'm a fan of using hyperbole, but you don't get to say that someone is "worse than Hitler" and then get mad when people think that you don't like him.
I think you're misunderstanding the point of that analogy. The point wasn't to say "this is literally as bad as using a nuclear weapon". The point was to say that it is a ridiculously heavy-handed solution to the problem that could be much better solved with a much less extreme solution (and, secondarily, that any improvement would be, at best, very temporary). If you would
Re: (Score:2)
That's fine, but you don't get to go over-the-top and then expect people to understand exactly what your real feelings are.
Re: (Score:2)
People crossing the border illegally will not even try to quarantine, and will actively avoid contact tracing. This will lead to outbreaks popping up no matter how well most people handle things.
Sadly, that may be true, but we have only our backwards immigration policies to blame for that. This is a problem that's relatively easy to fix.
But if you're not willing to fix that, you can still largely avoid the problem by using a private company to administer the program, and passing laws prohibiting that company from asking for the citizenship status of anyone involved or sharing any information with law enforcement under any circumstances unless the company itself is being sued for fraud. If necessa
Re: (Score:2)
It's not so much the policies, it's the selective enforcement. If we have heavily restricted immigration and strong, uniform enforcement, that would probably lead to relatively few illegal immigrants, even if you disagree with the policy. Same with a lax policy matched with cops not harassing people who are within the law. But the way things are, the lax enforcement lets them in, and then the restrictive laws ke
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. If you think some of the problem was on my end could you quote the part that threw you off?
It was definitely a mix. Specifically this sentence threw me:
And of course this isn't temporary, because people will mess up quarantine, an emergency or a natural disaster will occur, drugs and other contraband will still get smuggled, and the whole thing will start over again.
Which I interpreted to mean that they would do a future evacuation because of either A. someone screwing up the quarantine, B. some other emergency or natural disaster necessitating an evacuation, or C. to stop drugs and contraband, whereas you meant that other disasters and/or people smuggling drugs/contraband will mess up the quarantine.
Re: (Score:2)
Quarantines and travel bans are mutually inclusive or exclusive.
You can have a travel ban with no guarantee and still have the virus spread (especially since the China travel ban didn't actually stop everyone coming from China).
You can also have no travel ban but quarantines which is probably more effective.
You can also have travel bans and quarantines (especially of those entering the country) which is arguably the most effective.
So yes, the Trump imposed travel restrictions for people coming from China pr
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
This effect is usually subtle. Language is very imperfect and its very easy for the brain to automatically supply the interpretation the pe
Re:More TDS (Score:5, Informative)
I've been through dozens and dozens of case where it's claimed that Trump "got the facts wrong". I was surprised because I struggled to find a case where that was definitively so.
OK, here are a few.
Wednesday, February 19: Trump: The coronavirus will weaken “when we get into April, in the warmer weather—that has a very negative effect on that, and that type of a virus.” (April was a peak)
Thursday, February 27: Trump: The outbreak would be temporary: “It’s going to disappear. One day it’s like a miracle—it will disappear.” (Nope.)
Monday, July 6: Trump: “We now have the lowest fatality rate in the World.” (Note that the U.S. has neither the lowest mortality rate nor the lowest case-fatality rate.)
Monday, May 11: Trump: The United States has conducted more testing “than all other countries together!” (nope).
You need more?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't wikipedia or a scientific paper. It's a comment and discussion forum. It's casual and you don't have to take everything everyone says as gospel. Everything should be met wi
Re: (Score:2)
Without diving too far into details, when people make claims about things I tend to like to know why they think something. I'm one of those people who like to question what I believe because I know that I tend to keep my head down on a lot of stuff going on because.... I just don't have the time to educate myself on everything. However, i do like learning.
Therefore, if someone makes a claim about anything I like to know why they think that or where they get their information. This isn't some weird person
Re: (Score:2)
Yet what I base my conclusions on isn't some Gnostic secret insider information. It's generally based on obse
Re: (Score:2)
Okay. We need to stop this. You keep referencing some Wikipedia as if I need a line-by-line backing of everything you say. This is not the first time I've said, explicitly, that this is not what I'm asking for. Also, let's both assume that each of us has a busy life where spending our free time researching everyone else's viewpoint isn't practical. My schedule is already 18 hours a day of working, teaching, etc. and I don't need more of a headache. I'll work off the assumption you're a busy individual
Re: (Score:2)
That aside I don't keep a diary of absolutely every video, news article and other thing I migh
Re: (Score:2)
So we finally starting talking. Good. The information here is a lot and gives me something to read over and the context gives me something to ponder. This is what I wanted. Please understand, however, that your attitude sucks. If someone asks you a question about why you think something, the thing to not do is berate them. Show them respect and don't insult people's intelligence because their experiences or interests don't match your own. It's one of the many reasons discourse sucks around here. Act
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So it started dropping off in April, and that's evidence that ... there wasn't a negative effect on the virus then?
April [Re:More TDS] (Score:2)
So it started dropping off in April, and that's evidence that ... there wasn't a negative effect on the virus then?
In the week of February 19, when Trump made the statement that the coronavirus would "weaken" in April, there were a total of 53 cases in the United States.
At the end of April, there were 28,000 new cases per day in the United States.
No, the coronavirus didn't "weaken" in April compared to when he made that statement.
Re: (Score:2)
So it did "weaken in April", but you're allowed to slap on whatever other stuff you want to make the statement false? You sound like a "fact"-checker:
"The weather will warm up in April" - Our rating: mostly false. Sure, the weather did steadily warm throughout April, but since the statement was made in August (and by Trump), well...
Re: (Score:2)
So it did "weaken in April",
It did not weaker in April compared to when he made the statement, no.
Re: (Score:2)
But it did "weaken in April". You don't get to swap "it will be weaker in April than it is now" for what he actually said and then claim he was wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
But it did "weaken in April". You don't get to swap "it will be weaker in April than it is now" for what he actually said and then claim he was wrong.
When he said. "It will weaken in April," this very clearly means "it will be weaker in April than it is now."
You may say "look, he was technically correct", but no, absolutely not. You are distorting his words.
If I complain about a traffic tie up at 3pm, and you tell me 'don't worry, the traffic will lessen by 5:30', you can't then tell me "well, it's a bad traffic jam at 5:30, but I was technically correct because when I said it would lessen, I only meant it will be better at 5:30 than it was at 5."
Re: (Score:2)
I could not find that exact quote, so I'm not sure which one you're talking about, but it's clear from the similar ones I've found that he hoped that warmer weather would help. By your own admission, it apparently did.
If I look for the quotation from your original post I find "I think it's going to work out fine. I think when we get into April, in the warmer weather, that has a very negative effe
Re: (Score:2)
Bye.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, a full verbatim quotation, context for others, a rebuttal with numbered steps, and an explanatory analogy - totally void of content. /s
Well, rage quitting probably is your best move at this point. Best of luck.
Re: (Score:1)
Wednesday, February 19: Trump: The coronavirus will weaken “when we get into April, in the warmer weather—that has a very negative effect on that, and that type of a virus.” (April was a peak)
This sounds more like a hopeful statement from early on before we knew how bad it was going to get. Not a scientific prediction based on modelling.
Thursday, February 27: Trump: The outbreak would be temporary: “It’s going to disappear. One day it’s like a miracle—it will disappear.” (Nope.)
I read this as: "one day, this whole pandemic will be over and it will seem like a miracle when it is". I'm sure it will be over some day.
I do agree, without looking into them further, that the other two look like he "got the facts wrong".
Re: (Score:2)
None of these statements are egregious examples. The question here is
Re: (Score:2)
"It's shown very encouraging -- very, very encouraging early results. And we're going to be able to make that drug available almost immediately. And that's where the FDA has been so great. They -- they've gone through the approval process; it's been approved. And they did it -- they took it down from many, many months to immediate. So we're going to be able to make that drug available by prescription or states,"
Trump may not have come up with HCQ as a treatment for the virus but he did state that it had been approved by the FDA as a treatment even though it never was nor has it been approved as a treatment by the FDA.
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't approved as a "treatment", but is was approved for "compassionate use" [pharmacytimes.com]. If you listen to the entire press conference it's clear that
Re: (Score:2)
I just re-listened to the press conference. Trump only states that HCQ was approved by the FDA and they did much faster than normal. Nowhere does he say or even imply that the drug is only being given Extended Access.
The article you linked also goes out of their way to state that in no way was HCQ approved as a treatment for the virus.
Chloroquine and remdesivir are not FDA-approved for a COVID-19 indications, but Expanded Access allows patients with serious or life-threatening cases of the virus to have access to them as investigational medicinal products.
Re: (Score:2)
Literally the first mention of "approval" was "The FDA has also approved compassionate use for a significant number of patients." [whitehouse.gov], he then goes on to use "approved" as shorthand. There's plenty to criticize there, but if we're going to be fair it's important to clarify exactly what happened.