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* c
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 person is subconsciously searching for.
No one is perfect but Trump's record on facts, racism, science and many other things simply do not align with what the Democrats claim. This is very worrying, there's no factual basis for their insistence of Trump being consistently factually incorrect.
All I see is a flood of noise ironically drowning out if Trump ever does get it wrong which without fail always finds a way to interpret anything Trump does as wrong.
After going through accusation after accusation of Trump being racist then looking up the details I'm unable to find any case that either isn't racist up front or that doesn't have more probable and plausible interpretations.
At this point it's impossible to take anyone criticising Trump seriously. If I check a few dozen cases, the most prominent ones, accusing him of this or that and they all turn out to be baseless or uncertain with a low certainty of them being what they claim to be then I have to expect that is all I'm ever going to get.
COVID-19 is a mine field because it's new. People have to make decisions with insufficient information and there are many questions still not answered.
In all of this, I see people make mistakes all the time. I'm quite pedantic but Trump isn't even in the top ten for that. He struggles to make it into the top 100. Making the WHO the sole arbiter of information on COVID-19 when it has a record of getting it wrong and making political rather than scientific statements.
There's a real problem with the Democrats today because they have an array of destructive tendencies. They seem to routinely conflate their own political opinion with scientific belief. All I see are nothing but arrogant know it alls. On inspection I find them consistently in the wrong.
You fit a stereotype that keeps screaming conspiracy theory at anything you don't understand or disagree with. It has been established through the facts that lab involvement in the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 is both plausible and not prohibitively improbable. Although there are claims that science has established it came from nature, I have peer reviewed these papers myself and they failed to establish this.
The most prominent paper claiming a non-artificial origin inadvertently exposes a potential vulnerability in establishing the containment level in biological labs where a virus such as SARS-CoV-2 which might be treated at level four for certain work based on what we know now would present as a level three risk when empirical data is not available.
It's almost certain the news you've read on that is based on that paper. There are hundreds of articles claiming a natural origin based on it. It's flawed in many ways but least not of all the lab they inspected wasn't even in China. Wrong crime scene. You think your belief is based on science but have you reviewed the science yourself? You might trust your sources to be competent but would you consider not only investigating the wrong lab but in the wrong country competent? You may find yourself inadvertently grossly incompetent trusting others whose incompetence may well exceed your own.
You people keep saying it's science and when it comes down to it that determination overwhelmingly boils down to it being from a source that you trust. I suspect you're also out of date. Something like this was implausible not long ago. Few people are aware that as of late viruses such as SARS-CoV-2 have been created in the lab.
Ten years ago I predicted nuclear warfare would be superseded by biological warfare. This has huge potential such as:
* To target anything biological such as a specific crop.
* Effects can be of all manners not merely lethal.
* Compared to nukes delivery and transportation can be impossible to track.
* It would be possible to deploy it without the target knowing until it's too late.
* It could have an effect that's invisible.
* It could be impossible to determine who released it.
* Most importantly it would be possible to release an outbreak with it being potentially impossible to determine if it happened naturally.
Unfortunately we don't have enough evidence to be able to say where it came from. There are some things spawning off the possibility that I would call conspiracy theories. There are certain claims of strong evidence of a lab origin that are as uncertain as the counter claims. The possibility itself, either accidental, opportunistic or entirely deliberate is not a conspiracy theory. The instant denial at least betrays many organisations including the WHO which gives arguments they surely cannot not know are ludicrous when making them (such as it's a zootonic virus therefore it came from nature when the labs in Wuhan specialise heavily in zoonotic viruses).
HCQ was never touted as a miracle cure but something that might help. If it is effective then it's in specific circumstances. Trump did not come up with HCQ as a potential treatment for the virus. There was some scientific evidence originally to suggest that it might have some effect. It was not purely HCQ either but a combination of things expected to have low to moderate effects but the potential to take the edge off for many cases and to give the best chances such as using with anti-biotics to stave off secondary infection.
I've seen ample studies refuting its effect which I have found to be complete garbage. Retrospective studies, wrong drug, clinicians making serious mistakes, etc. HCQ is not a novel drug and Trump never ordered anyone to do anything with it. He simply mentioned it and it was in the hands of the medics all along. Medics don't sit their drooling waiting for the president to suggest a course of action. One of the reasons HCQ was first tried by medics was because they're very familiar with safely prescribing it at scale.
HCQ is already in use for malaria (including prevention) on a scale that exceeds that COVID-19. It's also used for things such as arthritis and can be bought over the counter in many major countries. It might also surprise you that millions of people have already been given it for COVID-19. Around 30 million doses are manufactured each month globally in normal circumstances. It is cheap and manufacturers have already sought to increase production to up to double should COVID-19 demand otherwise create shortages. The only way in which it would be deadly is if demand for it left supplies short for other ailments but this is already covered.
The response from people of which you're a typical example shows no real concern or respect for science. We don't know if it's safe you say? Do you realise how much empirical data we have for that already? It's as if nothing in the world exists until you read about it from a specific source. It's also very hard to take Trump's detractors seriously when their primary political body of opposition pursues a philosophy which dictates that objective reality does not exist.
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: (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* c
Re:More TDS (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 person is subconsciously searching for.
No one is perfect but Trump's record on facts, racism, science and many other things simply do not align with what the Democrats claim. This is very worrying, there's no factual basis for their insistence of Trump being consistently factually incorrect.
All I see is a flood of noise ironically drowning out if Trump ever does get it wrong which without fail always finds a way to interpret anything Trump does as wrong.
After going through accusation after accusation of Trump being racist then looking up the details I'm unable to find any case that either isn't racist up front or that doesn't have more probable and plausible interpretations.
At this point it's impossible to take anyone criticising Trump seriously. If I check a few dozen cases, the most prominent ones, accusing him of this or that and they all turn out to be baseless or uncertain with a low certainty of them being what they claim to be then I have to expect that is all I'm ever going to get.
COVID-19 is a mine field because it's new. People have to make decisions with insufficient information and there are many questions still not answered.
In all of this, I see people make mistakes all the time. I'm quite pedantic but Trump isn't even in the top ten for that. He struggles to make it into the top 100. Making the WHO the sole arbiter of information on COVID-19 when it has a record of getting it wrong and making political rather than scientific statements.
There's a real problem with the Democrats today because they have an array of destructive tendencies. They seem to routinely conflate their own political opinion with scientific belief. All I see are nothing but arrogant know it alls. On inspection I find them consistently in the wrong.
You fit a stereotype that keeps screaming conspiracy theory at anything you don't understand or disagree with. It has been established through the facts that lab involvement in the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 is both plausible and not prohibitively improbable. Although there are claims that science has established it came from nature, I have peer reviewed these papers myself and they failed to establish this.
The most prominent paper claiming a non-artificial origin inadvertently exposes a potential vulnerability in establishing the containment level in biological labs where a virus such as SARS-CoV-2 which might be treated at level four for certain work based on what we know now would present as a level three risk when empirical data is not available.
It's almost certain the news you've read on that is based on that paper. There are hundreds of articles claiming a natural origin based on it. It's flawed in many ways but least not of all the lab they inspected wasn't even in China. Wrong crime scene. You think your belief is based on science but have you reviewed the science yourself? You might trust your sources to be competent but would you consider not only investigating the wrong lab but in the wrong country competent? You may find yourself inadvertently grossly incompetent trusting others whose incompetence may well exceed your own.
You people keep saying it's science and when it comes down to it that determination overwhelmingly boils down to it being from a source that you trust. I suspect you're also out of date. Something like this was implausible not long ago. Few people are aware that as of late viruses such as SARS-CoV-2 have been created in the lab.
Ten years ago I predicted nuclear warfare would be superseded by biological warfare. This has huge potential such as:
* To target anything biological such as a specific crop. * Effects can be of all manners not merely lethal. * Compared to nukes delivery and transportation can be impossible to track. * It would be possible to deploy it without the target knowing until it's too late. * It could have an effect that's invisible. * It could be impossible to determine who released it. * Most importantly it would be possible to release an outbreak with it being potentially impossible to determine if it happened naturally.
Unfortunately we don't have enough evidence to be able to say where it came from. There are some things spawning off the possibility that I would call conspiracy theories. There are certain claims of strong evidence of a lab origin that are as uncertain as the counter claims. The possibility itself, either accidental, opportunistic or entirely deliberate is not a conspiracy theory. The instant denial at least betrays many organisations including the WHO which gives arguments they surely cannot not know are ludicrous when making them (such as it's a zootonic virus therefore it came from nature when the labs in Wuhan specialise heavily in zoonotic viruses).
HCQ was never touted as a miracle cure but something that might help. If it is effective then it's in specific circumstances. Trump did not come up with HCQ as a potential treatment for the virus. There was some scientific evidence originally to suggest that it might have some effect. It was not purely HCQ either but a combination of things expected to have low to moderate effects but the potential to take the edge off for many cases and to give the best chances such as using with anti-biotics to stave off secondary infection.
I've seen ample studies refuting its effect which I have found to be complete garbage. Retrospective studies, wrong drug, clinicians making serious mistakes, etc. HCQ is not a novel drug and Trump never ordered anyone to do anything with it. He simply mentioned it and it was in the hands of the medics all along. Medics don't sit their drooling waiting for the president to suggest a course of action. One of the reasons HCQ was first tried by medics was because they're very familiar with safely prescribing it at scale.
HCQ is already in use for malaria (including prevention) on a scale that exceeds that COVID-19. It's also used for things such as arthritis and can be bought over the counter in many major countries. It might also surprise you that millions of people have already been given it for COVID-19. Around 30 million doses are manufactured each month globally in normal circumstances. It is cheap and manufacturers have already sought to increase production to up to double should COVID-19 demand otherwise create shortages. The only way in which it would be deadly is if demand for it left supplies short for other ailments but this is already covered.
The response from people of which you're a typical example shows no real concern or respect for science. We don't know if it's safe you say? Do you realise how much empirical data we have for that already? It's as if nothing in the world exists until you read about it from a specific source. It's also very hard to take Trump's detractors seriously when their primary political body of opposition pursues a philosophy which dictates that objective reality does not exist.
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.